DOCUMENT RESUME SE 015 696 AUTHOR Blosser, Patricia E. … · 2014-01-02 · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 072...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 072 978 SE 015 696

AUTHOR Blosser, Patricia E.TITLE The Development of the Skill of Questioning in

Prospective Secondary School Science Teachers: AnExtension. Final Report.

INSTITUTION Ohio State Univ., Columbus.SPONS AGENCY National Center for Educational Research and

Development (DHEW/OE), Washington, D.C.BUREAU NO BR-2-E-010PUB DATE Dec 72GRANT OEG-5-72-0043(509)NOTE 83p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS *Classroom Communication; Educational Research;

*Preservice Education; *Questioning Techniques;Science Education; Teacher Education; *TeachingMethods; Teaching Styles; *Verbal Communication

IDENTIFIERS Research Reports

ABSTRACTThe major problem investigated was to assess the

effectiveness of an instructional procedure designed to develop skillin questioning, as a teaching technique, by prospective scienceteachers. Subproblems in'Jstigated were to determine: (1) if skilldeveloped during this instructional sequence would transfer to thestudent teaching experience; and (2) possible relationships ofselected personality factors to the development of questioningskills. The study extended over three quarters. Student teachers weregiven the Otis Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Test, Gamma Test, FormEm, to measure intelligence; the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Form E,to measure personality type; and the Educational Set Scale by Siegeland Siegel, to measure educational set. The 42 individuals involvedin the study appeared representative of the population of pre-servicesecondary school science teachers enrolled at The Ohio StateUniversity. Questioning appeared to be a skill that could bedeveloped, through instruction and practice, by these individuals.The development of questioning skill did not appear to be limited byintelligence, sex, personality type, or educational set, insofar asthis sample was concerned. (Author)

0202t../M°C-FE.Cla

X 0.CE004'"OW XOZ CC 0041E2 W0°,4W1,402>11.17:t1,4,z=w4'40U56...A.W0,U 4'2 ...0'.'04)X44.0

M'i404.00°X.ei'M42:i4g.20(5°400XT,200-21.. ..../ -. ...,1u2uza-

wotu340.--o.!,04z,oo0o-0a,,;1z0 w 00.,a

w4..1ACCZ Ouw4zo..z

.01.-z Z°C141.1!

169.9/0 3S

Final Report

Project No. 2-E-010Grant No. 0EG-5-72-0043 (509)

THE DEVELOMENT OF THE SKILL OF QUESTIONING INPROSPECTIVE SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS:

AN EXTENSION

Patricia E. Blosser

The Ohio State University

Columbus, Ohio

December 1972

The research reported herein was performed pursuant to agrant with the Office of Education, U.S. Development ofHealth, Education, and Welfare. Contractors undertakingsuch projects under Government sponsorship are encouragedto express freely their professional judgment in theconduct of the project. Poirts of view or opinions donot, therefore, necessarily represent official Officeof Education position or policy.

U. S. Department of

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Office of EducationNational Center for Educational Research and Development

AUTHOR'S ABSTRACT

The major problem of the study was to extend the research on thedevelopment of questioning skill begun as a doctoral dissertation, todetermine the combined effects of duration and timing of instructionin questioning techniques.

Twenty-seven preservice teachers were involved in the two-quarterstudy. The subjects were randomly assigned to three treatment groups:Group R1 received instruction in questioning distributed over a 14-weekperiod; groups R2 and R3 received the same instruction during a seven-week period, in quarter one of the study for group R3 and in quartertwo for R2.

Three hypotheses were tested:

1. There is no significant effect of duration (massed vs.distributed practice) of the instructional sequence onskill development in questioning.

2. There is no significant trend over time in developmentL.f questioning skill.

3. There are no differential effects in treatments acrossaudiotaping sessions for the criterion variables:Open Questions, Pause Time, Teacher Talk.

Data were gathered by audiotaping lessons during quarter twc,. Datawere analyzed by using programs for correlation, stepwise regressionanalysis, and amak,sis of variance.

HypotheE 1 could not be rejected on the basis of data analysis.Hypothesis '2 could not be rejected for the variables of Open Questionsand Teacher Talk. Hypothesis 2 could be rejected for the variable ofPause Time. Hypothesis 3 could not be rejected for the criterion vari-ables of Open Questions and Pause Time. It could be rejected for thecriterion variable of Teacher Talk.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

Page

viii

INTRODUCTION 1

Focus of the Study 1Definition of Terms 2Rationale for Continuing the Research 3Review of Related Literature 4Assumptions 6Hypotheses 6Limitations of the Study 7Delimitations of the Stud/ 7

METHODS 8

Population 8Design of the Study 8Treatment 9Criterion Variables 10Data-Gathering Procedures 10Data-Analysis Procedures 11Techniques Used to Test the Hypotheses 13

RESULTS 13

Pre-Test Analysis 13Reporting of Results 17Analysis of Variance Results 17Polynomial Regression Results: Four Tapes 25Polynomial Regression Results: Three Tapes 35

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS 40

Hypothesis 1 40Hypothesis 2 40Hypothesis 3 46

CONCLUSIONS 47

RECCMMENDATIONS 49

REFERENCES Cilbll 53

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

PageAPPENDIX A A Study of the Development of the Skill of

Effective Questioning by Prospective SecondarySchool Science Teachers 57

APPENDIX B Instructional Procedures for the Three Treat-ment Groups 59

APPENDIX C Question Category System 62

APPENDIX D Dependent Variables Involved in the Study . 63

APPENDIX E Self-Analysis/Evaluation Form Used by Students '64

APPENDIX F Additional Information Supplied as Backgroundfor Audiotaped Lessons 65

APPENDIX G Statistical Tables 67

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. No.

1 Pause Time Means (Adjusted for Covariance) AcronsAudiotapes by Treatment Groups

2 Pause Time Means (Adjusted for Covariance) AcrossTreatment Groups by Audiotape

3 Teacher Talk (Adjusted for Covariance) AcrossAudiotapes by Treatment Groups

4 Teacher Talk (Adjusted for Covariance) AcrossTreatment Groups by Audiotapes

5 Plot of Teacher Talk Variable Over the Four TapingSessions by Treatment Group

6 Plot of Open Question Percentages Over the FourTaping Sessions by Treatment Group

7 Plot of Pause Time Mean Over the Four Taping Sessionsby Treatment Group

8 Plot of Managerial Question Percentages Over theFour Taping Sessions by Treatment Group

9 Plot of Student Talk Variable Over the Four TapingSessions by Treatment Group

10 Plot of Pause Time Variable Over the Three Audiotapesby Treatment Group

11 Plot of Per Cent Enetorical Questions Variable Overthe Three Audiotapes by Treatment Group

12 Plot of Managerial Question Percentages Over theThree Audiotapes by Treatment Group

Pa E

19

21

22

23

27

29

30

32

34

36

37

39

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

1 Distribution of the Population of the Study '8

2 Elementary School Assignments, Quarter Two 11

3 Reliability of Investigator 12

4 Variables Involved in the Study 14

5 Means and Standard Deviations for the Twelve Variablesfor the Three Treatment GrOups on the Pre-Test Tape 15

6 Analysis of Variance for the Twelve Variables of theStudy Pre-Test Tape 16

7 Summary of Regression Analyses Using QuestioningTechnique Variables as Independent Predictor Vari-ables of Treatment Group Membership 16

8 Analysis of Covariance of Treatments by Audiotapingfor Open Questions /Total. Questions 1.8

9 Analysis of Covariance of Treatments by Audiotapingfor Pause Time Mean (sec) 18

10 Pause Time Means for Treatment Groups by AudiotapeSession 19

11 Pause Time Means for Audiotape Session by TreatmentGroup 20

12 Analysis of Covariance of Treatments by Audiotapingfor Percentage of Teacher Talk 21

13 Means for Teacher Talk for Treatment Groups byAudiotape Session 22

14 Means for Teacher Talk for Audiotape Session byTreatment Group 23

15 Analysis of Variance for Rhetorical Questions/Total Questions Audiotapes I, II and III 24

16 Audiotape Adjusted Means Differences for RhetoricalQuestions /Total Questions 24

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Ise17 F-Ratios Resulting from Analysis of Variance

for Polynomial Regression, Goodness of FitTest, for Teacher Talk Variable 26

18 Means for Per Cent of Teacher Talk for the FourTaping Sessions by Treatment Group 26

19 Means for Per Cent Open Questions for the FourTaping Sessions by Treatment Group 28

20 Means for Pause Time Mean for the Four TapingSessions by Treatment Group 28

21 F-Ratios Resulting from Analysis of Variance for

Polynomial Regression, Goodness of Fit Test, forPer Cent Managerial Questions Variable 31

22 Means for Per Cent Managerial Questions for theFour Taping Sessions by Treatment Group 31

23 F-Ratios Resulting from Analysis of Variance forPolynomial Regression, Goodness of Fit Test, forStudent Talk Variable 33

24 Means for Student Talk for the Four TapingSessions by Treatment Group 33

25 F-Ratios Resulting from Analysis of Variance forPolynomial Regression, Goodness of Fit Test, forPause Time Variable 35

26 F-Ratios Resulting from Analysis of Variance forPolynomial Regression, Goodness of Fit Test, forPer Cent Rhetorical Questions Variable 36

27 Means for Rhetorical Question Percentages Variablefor the Three Audiotapes by Treatment Group 37

28 F-Ratios Resulting from Analysis of Variance forPolynomial Regression, Goodness of Fit Test, forPer Cent Managerial Questions Variable 38

vii

PREFACE

The assistance of Jane Frowine in preparing typescripts and ofMona Dove in timing questions and verbal interaction is gratefullyacknowledged. Special thanks are due Dr. Arthur L. White for hisadvice and assistance in the statistical analysis portion of thisstudy and to Dr. Robert W. Howe for advice and encouragement.

viii

INTRODUCTION

Asking questions has long been accepted as a teaching technique.One of the current emphases in science education is the use of "inquiry"techniques. This implies the use of teacher questions structured toenable students to discover information for themselves rather than pro-viding then the information via a lecture. It is assumed that providingstudents with experiences designed to enable then to learn to think forthemselves will not only aid the students in developing a skill (criticalthinking) which they can use in any area but will also enable the stu-dents to increase their achievement-in the particular subject beingtaught. Ladd (28) investigated the relationship between the inquirylevel of teacher questions and student achievement. Using a populationof 40 ninth grade earth science classes, Ladd found that group achieve-ment on a post-test was significantly affected by the teacher's inquirylevel as determined by teacher questions. The teachers who asked agreater proportion of higher inquil7 questions caused a greater changein students as measured by the post-test.

However, not all of the teachers in Ladd's sample asked questionsthat could be classified as inquiry-type. Other investigators studyingteacher behavior in science classrooms [Kleinman (24), Bruce (6)] havealso reported that science teachers ask questions that primarily empha-size the recall of factual information. If changes are to be made inthe behavior of teachers, programs to effect these changes must be begunduring preservice education and must be continued via in-service activ-ities.

The investigator's interest in helping preservice secondary schoolscience teachers develop skill in questioning resulted in a doctoraldissertation completed during the 1969-1970 academic year. The study,its methodology, and findings are available in final report form asProject No. 9-E-126, Grant No. 0EG-5-70-0003, The Ohio State UniversityResearch Foundation, September, 1970 (4). An abstract of the findingsof this study is contained in Appendix A of this report.

Focus of the Study

The major purpose of the present study was to extend the researchon the development of questioning skill to determine the combined effectsof the duration and timing of instruction in questioning techniques.

Problems to be investigated were:

1) Does continuing the instructional procedure in questioningfor a fourteen-week period result in a greater degree ofskill development than the same amount of instruction com-pleted during a seven-week period?

1

2) Do the subjects involved in the study reach a peak of skilldevelopment as instruction progresses, with only reinforce-ment resulting after this peak is reached, or does skilldevelopment continue throughout the instructional sequence?

3) Do students involved in instruction in questioning concur-rent with application in the classroom perform better (interms of questioning behavior) than those whose instructionand application are separated in time?

Definition of Terms

The following terms are defined to provide background information.

1. Category system: a method of classifying question. relativeto the type of cognitive process the question is designedto stimulate in the student.

2. Closed question: one for which there is a limited range ofacceptable responses.

3. Cognitive processes: cctegories of thinking, identified inhierarchical complexity: as in Bloom's Taxonomy of Educa-tional Objectives: Cognitive Domain or in Guilford's "Struc-ture of Intellect" model, or covert mental operations suchas differentiation, identification of common properties,extrapolation.

4. Higher order questions: questions designed to cause studentsto use and /or formulate ideas rather than just to recallthen.

5. Instructional sequence: the structured experiences to whichthe prospective science teacher will be exposed and theactivities in which he will be engaged as he learns to usethe category system and then uses it to develop facilityin questioning (prior to teaching a lesson and during thelesson). (Also referred to as "instructional procedure.")

6. Microteaching: a teacher education technique which allowsan individual to teach a carefully planned lesson, usinga clearly defined teaching technique or skill, in aplanned series of short encounters (no more than fifteenminutes), wits a small group of students (four to eight).either of the age group he plans to teach in the futureor of peers.

7. Open question: one for which there is a wide range ofacceptable responses.

2

8. Prospective science teacher: a preservice teacher, enrolledin The College of Education, who is planning to teachscience in some secondary school system upon graduationfrom college.

9. Question: verbal interchange in which the teacher uses inter-rogative form or solicits information by an imperative state-ment. Occasions in which the teacher responds to a raisedhand or answers "Yes?" are not included in this definition.

Rationale for Continuing the Research

The subjects involved in the dissertation research project were pre-service secondary school science teachers enrolled in Education 587.27,Student Teaching in the Secondary Schools: Science, at The Ohio StateUniversity. Exposure to instruction in questioning was limited to thefirst four to five weeks of the student teaching quarter.

This time restriction was imposed because participation in theresearch was added to the student teaching activities rather than beingsubstituted for some portion of them. The vehicle used to obtain prac-tice in questioning in an instructional setting was microteaching involv-ing peers (preservice elementary school teachers enrolled in Education511, Elementary Education: Science). Neither the limited duration ofthe instructional procedure (three microlessons of the teach-reteachvariety: six sessions in all) nor the use of peers as students was con-Lidered conducive of successful development of the skill of questioningas a teaching technique.

Because the investigator was unable to identify student teachingcandidates the quarter prior to enrollment in student teaching, instruc-tion in questioning was begun at the same time the preservice teacherwas beginning student teaching.

Three teacher behaviors were used as criterion variables in thedissertation research. These behaviors were (1) asking Open Questions(those to which there is a variety of acceptable responses), (2) pausingfor at least three seconds after asking a question in order to allowpupils time to think before responding, and (3) questioning in a mannerdesigned to decrease the percentage of teacher talk during the lesson.

The preservice teachers who received instruction in questioning andwho had an opportunity to practice this skill were able to maintain asignificantly (.10 level) better level of skill in pausing and decreasingteacher talk than those not receiving instruction. There were no dif-ferences -Ln the ability to ask Open Questions during the instructionalsequence ur during student teaching.

Additional research is needed to provide data for use in determiningif increasing the duration of the instructional sequence, if practicing

3

questioning techniques in instructional situations with public schoolpupils (as opposed to microteaching using peers as students), and ifintroducing instruction in questioning prior to working with instruc-tional groups would result in significant gains for the three criterionvariables.

Two investigators completed research related to the problems justenumerated. Bereit (3) provided instruction in questioning prior tostudent teaching. Training consisted of eight weekly, two-hour sessionsand was not extended during student teaching. Bereit's sample consistedof eleven senior elementary education 3tudents. No information concern-ing pupil population was given in the document read. These individualsincreased their skill in question asking behavior. This skill alsoincreased from end of training to end of student teaching but not at alevel of significance (.05). Bereit concluded placement for studentteaching appeared to have had a major influence on ability and motivationto make use of prior training. She also emphasized that the time in thepreservice program when students get specialized training in analysis ofteaching was an important factor to consider in preservice education.

Boeck (5) also provided instruction in questioning techniques priorto student teaching. Her students, college juniors, taught microlessonsto small groups of junior high school pupils. Boeck found, in herresearch, that the individuals who received training increased theirrate of high level questioning, decreased the rate of teacher talk, andincreased the rate of pupil talk.

Review of Related Literature

More than 200 sources were examined and analyzed in reviewing.theliterature prior to undertaking the dissertation research (4). Thesearch for relevant material has been continued and extended. Studieshave been classified as relating to question classification systems, toclassrooms other than science, and to science classrooms. Within eachof the second and third categories, the materials have been further sub-divided into descriptive studies and experimental studies.

The information obtained may be summarized as follows. The questioncategory systems identified were primarily concerned with the cognitiveaspects of questions and teachers' questioning behavior poidon (2);Clegg, Farley, and Curran (7); Davis et al.(13); Gallagher and Aschner(17); Hunter (20,21); Los Angeles City Schools (29); Shrable and Minnis(36)]. A few systems included student response categories but themajority were concerned only with teachers' questions. A commonly heldassumption appeared to be that questions are asked to elicit thinkingon the part of the students and the type of question asked is indicativeof the level of the response that will result.

When materials concerning classroom questioning practices are con-sidered, the number of studies identified was not sufficiently large

4

enough to permit a system of grouping into elementary and secondaryschool levels, preservice teachers vs. in-service teachers, or specificcontent areas. Some investigators involved both preservice and in-service teachers in their sample. Others used different educationallevels and/or involved a variety of subject matter areas.

In science, as in other subjects, teachers dominated the oralactivity of the classroom, asking a large number of questions--the bulkof which called for little more than factual-recall thinking operationson the part of their pupils (Adams (1), Bruce (6), Clements (8), Davisand Tinsley (12), Floyd (15), Kleinman (24), Kongo (25), Moyer (31),Pate and Bremer (33), Wilson (37)]. Although there appeared to be muchconcern for the kinds of questions teachers ask and the relationship ofthose questions to student learning, little, if anything, was done as apart of these studies to piepare teachers to use questions effectivelyor to question in a manner designed to involve the majority of thepupils in the class discussion.

The experimental studies, in science and other content areas, pro-vided an indication that programs can be developed for improving ques-tioning behavior [Bereit (3); Boeck (5); Clegg, Farley and Curran (7);Cross (10); Cunningham (11); Houston (19); Johnson (22); Kallenbach (23);Konetski (26); Koran (27); Masla (30); Parsons and Shaftel (32); Rowe(34); Schreiber (35)]. The amount of success achieved appeared todepend in part upon the teachers' perceptions of the situation as wellas upon the methodology the instructional programs involved. Again, asin the descriptive studies, the emphasis was upon increasing the varietyof questions used. In some of the experimental studies conducted inscience classrooms, the investigators were able to report a decrease inthe number of low level questions asked [Cunningham (11), Johnson (22),Konetski (26)]. There were no data concerning the number of questionsasked in a given period of time although one researcher reported adecrease in the total number of questions asked [Konetski (26)].

The total number of studies identified, in science and'in othercontent areas, was insufficient for generalizing. The majority ofresearch has been done in social studies classrooms. Based on thesearch of the literature, it does appear reasonable to assume that,

1) questions can be classified, with the classification systemvarying with the investigator's purpose;

2) teachers generally tend to ask lower level questions, teach-ing experience or lack of it and content areas notwithstand-ing;

3) teachers tend to ask frequent questions and fail to providea sufficient length of time for students to think out anadequate, response;

5

4) instructional programs can be designed for use in modifyingquestioning techniques;

5) those instructional programs which have been designed tomodify questioning behavior in science have been primarilyat the elementary school level;

6) there is little or no evidence that attempts have been madeto help secondary school teachers increase the length oftime they pause after asking a question, to reduce the num-ber of questions they ask per class session, or to involvethe majority of students in the verbal interaction of thediscussion; and

7) the use of such techniques as videotaping the teacher'sperformance, or microteaching, increases the amount ofchange an individual makes.

Assumptions

Assumptions relating to this study are:

1. The verbal behavior of the teacher is important as a meansof transmitting information and of shaping student behavior.

2. The kinds of questions science teachers ask influence theoutcomes of science teaching.

3. Teachers must ask higher order questions if they expecttheir students to emphasize more than factual recall ofinformation in science.

4. Questioning is a skill that can be developed throughpractice and instruction.

Hypotheses

1. There is no significant effect of duration (massed vs.distributed practice) of the instructional sequence onskill development in questioning.

2. There is no significant trend over time in developmere.of questioning skill.

3. There are no differential effects in treatments acrossaudiotaping sessions for the criterion variables: OpenQuestions, Pause Time, Teacher Talk.

6

Limitations of the Study

1. The study was limited to preservice secondary schoolscience teachers enrolled at The Ohio State Universityduring the academic year of 1971-1972 or some portionthereof.

2. The presence of an observer in the classroom will influ-enze the questioning behavior of the particular pre-service teacher being observed.

-3. The group taught will influence the preservice teacher'squestioning behavior.

4. The lesson (content, objectives) will influence thetypes of questions asked by the preservice teacher.

5. The perceived control of the cooperating teacher willinfluence the preservice teacher's questioning behavior.

Delimitations of the Study

1. The study was limited to individuals enrolled in theJunior Program in Science Education at The Ohio StateUniversity during the Autumn and Winter Quarters of theacademic year of 1971-1972.

2. Data from audiotaped lessons were collected during theWinter Quarter when the college juniors worked withelementary school children.

3. Only the verbal questioning behavior of the preserviceteachers was analyzed. The nonverbal components werenot considered as a part of this study.

4. The analysis of questioning techniques was limited torandomly selected fifteen-minute segments of the sciencelesson.

5. The classification of questions was limited by theinvestigator's competence in interpreting and applyingthe Question Category System.

7

METHODS

This portion of the report contains a brief discussion of the popu-lation and sample for the study, design of the study, description oftreatments, data-gathering procedures, and procedures used in analyzingthe data.

Population

The population consisted of students enrolled in the junior yearof the preservice education program for secondary school science teachersat the Ohio State University. Participation in the study was a part ofthe teaching techniques component of the program. Students were randomlyassigned, at the beginning of the Autumn Quarter, to one of three treat-ment groups.

Table 1 - Distribution of the Population of the Study

Group Students

B1 10

R2 12

R3 17

Design of the Study

A quasi - experimental design in the form of a time-series experiment(Campbell and Stanley, in Gage's Handbook of Research on Teaching,Chapter 5, pp 213-215) was used. A time-series design with the repeatedintroduction of the experimental variable may be characterized as:

X10 X20 X30 X40.

The design of the study was:

Quarter One Quarter Two

Rt X1 X2 X3 O X40 X50

R2 XiX2X30 X40 X50

R3 X1 X5 0 0 0

X = instruction in questioning techniques0 = observation

8

Groups R1 and R2 were directly comparable for the amount of instruction,relative to the first observation.

Treatment

For purposes of describing the instruction in questioning, thedesign may be diagrammed as follows:

1971-1972 Academic Year

Autumn Quarter Winter QuarterWeeks 2 9 12 19

Group R1 X Instructional Procedure X

Group R2 X--Instructional Pro- Xcedure

Group R3 X--Instructional-XProcedure

All three groups received instruction in questioning as a teachingtechnique, using materials developed as a part of the earlier disserta-tion research (4). A description of the activities covered in each ofthe sessions of the instructional procedure is found in Appendix B.

Instruction in questioning techniques was carried out over a two-quarter period for members of group R. Group R., received instructionduring the second quarter of the junior program, concurrem with teach-ing science to elementary school children. Group R3 received instruc-tion in questioning during the first quarter of the junior program, withdata on their questioning techniques being gathered in quarter two,(During quarter one all of the students were involved in tutorial activi-ties in junior high school science.)

Members of all of the treatment groups received instruction inquestioning in on-campus sessions led by the investigator. Individualconferences concerning the subject's questioning behavior displayed onaudiotapes were also conducted by the investigator. Students were super-vised during their school experiences by the investigator and two addi-tional faculty members. Comments and criticism concerning questioningwere held to a minimum by the other faculty members. Instances in whichthey felt that students needed to be helped concerning questioning werereferred to the investigator.

The instructional procedure consisted of using the material con-tained in a handbook on questioning and of practicing the strategiesof (1) asking Open Questions, (2) pausing, and (3) questioning in amanner designed to decrease the percentage of teacher talk during alesson. Additional activities, specified in Appendix B, were used toprovide experience in classifying questions and in formulating. questionswhen planning lessons.

9

Criterion Variables

Three variables were chosen as criterion variables for this study:Open Questions, Pause Time, and Teacher Talk. Each of these variablesis further described in Appendix D of this report.

A preservice teacher was considered to have acquired some question-ing skill if he could use Open Questions in a lesson. It was assumedthat preservice teachers customarily use Closed Questions, ManagerialQuestions, and Rhetorical Questions but that they do not use Open Ques-tionsunless they are made aware of such questions.

Pausing was chosen as the second criterion variable. 'If teachersask their pupils questions requiring more than factual-recall thinkingoperations in the formulation of a responee, the pupils need to havetime to think before responding. Pausing for at least three seconds wasconsidered a questioning strategy which preservice teachers might notemploy unless they were aware of the function which pausing might serve.

Teachers who encourage their pupils to become independent learnersin science assume the role of a resource person rather than of anauthority who is the final source of all information. It seems logicalto assume that teachers serving as resource persons dominate the verbalinteraction of the classroom less than do teachers acting as authoritiesdispensing information. The third criterion variable was that of thepercentage of teacher talk heard during the lesson segment analyzed.

Data-Gathering Procedures

In quarter one, each student taught a fifteen-minute lesson (usinga science topic of his or her choice) aimed at the ninth grade level ofcomprehension. Peers served as students for this microteaching sessionwhich was recorded on videotape. These lessons served as baseline dataon the questioning behavior of each of the individuals involved in thestudy.

During quarter two, each of the students recorded three sciencelessons on audiotape for subsequent self-evaluation and data analysis.Each of theie recordings was separated in time by a two to two and one-half week interval. Each of the students was notified prior to theweek in which the recording was to be done and was asked to record alesson in which a discussion was to be a part of the science lesson.The lesson topic and date of recording (within time limitations) wasthe choice of the individual student.

Several data collection problems were encountered during quartertwo, resulting in the elimination of twelve studento from the totalpopulation. Some individuals had problems with class control and theextreme amount of background noise in some tapes rendered them impossible

10

to analyze. Several individuals forgot to record a lesson within thegiven time period. Several others recorded lessons and then inadver-tently erased the tapes before the data could be analyzed. As a result,cell sizes decreased, based on the number of usable audiotapes, so thatgroup RI contained only 6 individuals; F12, 7; and R3, 14 at the end ofthe data-gathering portion of the study.

When teaching assignments were made for quarter two of the study,faetors other than treatment group were considered in assigning juniorsto elementary school classrooms. As a result, the three treatmentgroups were not equally represented at any particular grade level. Thisassignment is shown in Table 2, in terms of taped lessons which couldbe used for data analysis.

Table 2 - Elementary School Assignments, Quarter Two

Students with Usable AudiotapesGrade Ri 112 R3

Kg. 0 0 3

1 2 2 5

2 0 1 1

3 1 0 1

4 0 0 1

5 2 1 1

6 0 3 2

EMR, Primary 0 0 0

EMR, Intermediate 1 0 0

7 1-4

Students who entered the junior program during quarter two and didnot therefore have a pretest videotape were not included in the analysis.Students who did not have three audiotaped science lessons for dataanalysis were also dropped from the data on which this report is based.

Data Analysis Procedures

Questions identified in the microteaching lesson and in the lessonstaped in the elementary schools were transcribed and made into typescripts.

11

Although the elementary science lessons varied in length, depending ontopic and grade level, only fifteen-minute segments of the verbal inter-action were analyzed in order to maintain the standard of comparisonwith the fifteen minute microteaching lessons. The segment to be ana-lyzed was randomly selected by applying a random number table to thecounter on the tape recorder. Only random numbers ranging from one totwenty five were used to insure that a fifteen-minute sequential segmentof the forty-minute tape would be chosen for analysis.

Classification of the questions from the pretest microteachingsituation and from the lessons was done by the investigator, using theQuestion Category System developed for the earlier study (4). A stop-clock was used to time the pause, if any, which followed a questionbefore a response was demanded or received, as well as to time teachertalk and student talk during the portion of the lesson selected foranalysis.

Each of the 34 lessons (number included students not considered indata analysis because of missing data) recorded for the third tapingwas analyzed three times to determine rater reliability.

The reliability of the average of the three ratings, each separatedin time by two-week intervals, was determined as specified by Guilford(18:300), using a modified form of a formula for intraclass correlation.Data used to make the calculations were obtained by processing the codedquestion classifications in a BMD 02V program, analysis of variance forfactorial design, using an IBM 360 computer.

The formula specified for intraclass correlation is:

rkk =Vr

Vr - Ve

where

Vr = variance between rows (in this study, a specific question)Ve = variance for residuals (or error)

The results of the calculations are shown in Table 3, below.

Table 3 - Reliability of Investigator

Category LevelInvestigator

I.93

II.92

III.90

12

Techniques Used to Test the Hypotheses

Complete information (a videotape of the microteaching lesson usedas a pretest measure and audiotapes of three elementary science lessons)was available for 27 juniors. Data obtained from the analyses of thesefour sessions were coded for computer programming to test the threehypotheses involved in the study. The equivalence of the three treat-ment groups at the beginning of the study was also investigated, usingpretest data.

Hypothesis 1. There is no significant effect of duration(massed vs. distributed practice) of the instructionalsequence on skill development in questioning.

Data obtained from tapes were submitted to programs for correla-tion, for stepwise regression analysis, and for analysis of variance.

Hypothesis 2. There is no significant trend over time indevelopment of questioning skill.

Data from the tapes were analyzed, using polynomial regressionand analysis of variance techniques.

Hypothesis 3. There are no differential effects in treat.).ments across audiotaping sessions for the criterion varia=bles: Open Questions, Pause Time., Teacher Talk.

Data obtained from the tapes were analyzed, using analysis ofvariance techniques.

RESULTS

Pre-Test Analysis

The pre-test situation consisted of a fifteen-minute microteachinglesson in which peers served as ninth grade students. The lessons wererecorded on videotape. Data from these videotaped microteaching lessonswere analyzed to determine if the three treatment groups were equivalent.The students had been randomly assigned to each of the three groups.

_Twelve variables were used in this analysis. These variables arelisted in Table 4.

13

Table 4 - Variables Involved in the Study

Variable Source

Closed Question RatioOpen Question Ratio

Managerial Question RatioRhetorical Question RatioClosed Questions:TiOpen Questions:TiManagerial Questions:TiRhetorical Questions:TiPause Time MeanTeacher TalkStudent TalkSi] once**

Closed Questions/Total QuestionsOpen Questions/Total QuestionsManagerial Questions/Total QuestionsRhetorical Questions/Total QuestionsClosed Questions/Lesson Length*Open Questions/Lesson Length*Managerial Questions/Lesson Length*Rhetorical Questions/Lesson Length*Mean Pause*Amount of Teacher Talk/Lesson Length*Amount of Student Talk /Lesson Length*"Silence/Lesson Length*

*All variables involving time were computed in seconds

**The variable of Silence was considered to consist of any portionsof the lesson segment in which teacher and students were not inter-acting. It consisted of more than silence in that it includedpause time, confusion, interruptions (visitor entering the class-room, announcement over the public address system, remarks by thecooperating teacher, etc.), and intervals in which-students workedon an activity without teacher guidance or intervention.

The means and standard deviations for these variables for the totalpopulation and for each of the treatment groups are presented in Table 5.

14

Table 5 - Means and Standard Deviations for the Twelve Variables forthe Three Treatment Groups on the Pre-Test Tape

VariableTotal Sample

(16.27)

Ri

(N=6)112 Rs

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. ealT.Closed Questions 0.60 0.18 0.65 0.25 0.70 0.14 0.53 0.14Open Questions 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.05 0.15 0.10Managerial

Questions 0.20 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.26 0.11Rhetorical

Questions 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.07ClosedQuestions:Ti 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01

OpenQuestions:Ti 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

ManagerialQuestions:Ti 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00

Rhetorical

Questions:Ti 0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Pause TimeMean 1.32 0.58 1.49 0.69 1.11 0.31 1.37 0.64

Teacher Talk 0.58 0.21 0.76 0.33 0.54 0.13 0.52 0.13Student Talk 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.14 0.07 0.08 0.04Silence 0.33 0.21 0.18 0.31 0.32 0.15 0.40 0.15

Multiple analyses of variance and stepwise regression analysisprograms were used to determine if groups were equivalent. The threegroups were found not to be equivalent for four variables: ManagerialQuestions, Closed Questions:Ti, Teacher Talk, Student Talk. Table 6contains the results of the multivariate analysis of the variance pro-gram. Table 7 contains a summary of the regression analyses for thepre-test data.

Table 6 - Analysis of Variance for the TwelveVariables of the Study Pre-Test Tape

Variable F (2,21) Mean SQ P Less Than*

1 2.240 0.062 0.1312 0.174 0.002 0.842

3 2.071 0.033 0.151

4 0.307 0.001 0.739

5 8.025 0.001 0.003

6 0.100 0.000 0.906

7 1.432 0.000 0.2618 0.569 0.000 0.575

9 1.397 0.432 0.269

10 3.224 0.127 0.060

11 4.030 0.012 0.033

12 2.397 3.097 0.115

*a level

Table 7 - Summary of Regression Analyses Using QuestioningTechnique Variables as Independent PredictorVariables of Treatment Group Membership

IndependentVariable

Multiple MultipleR2

Increase inMultiple

R2

df

Treatment Group R1

Teacher Talk 0.4758 0.2264 0.2264 1,25 7.3173

ManagerialQuestions/Total 0.6493 0.4215 0.1170 3,23 4.6505

Treatment Group R2

Closed Questions/Time 0.5157 0.2659 0.2659 1,25 9.0566Student Talk 0.5950 0.3451 0.0881 2,24 3.2742

Treatment Group R3

ManagerialQuestions/Total 0.4474 0.2002 0.2002 1,25 6.2572

Critical F at .05 level of significance = 4.24 for 1,25 df3.40 for 2,24 df3.03 for 3,23 df

16

The variables of Managerial Questions, Closed Questions:Ti, TeacherTalk, and Student Talk were used as covariates for subsequent dataanalyses.

Reporting of Results

Each of the three hypotheses of the study was stated in the nullform. The alpha level chosen was that of .05 significance level. Two-tailed or nondirectional tests were used.

In this report, the results will be presented in two parts: thoseconcerned with the analyses of variance and those concerned with poly-nomial regression.

The hypotheses to be tested were:

Hypothesis 1. There is no significant effect of duration(massed vs. distributed practice) of the instructionalsequence on skill development in questioning.

Hypothesis 2. There is no significant trend over time indevelopment of questioning skill.

Hypothesis 3. There are'no differential effects in treat-ments across audiotaping sessions for the criterion varia-bles: 0 en Questions Pause Time Teacher Talk.

Multivariate analysis of variance techniques were used to test allthree hypotheses of this study. Additional information for testinghypothesis two was obtained from the polynomial regression program.

Analysis of Variance Results

Data from the tapes were analyzed by multivariate analysis ofvariance, to test hypotheses one, two and three.

When the data were analyzed for each of the criterion variables(open Questions, Pause Time, Teacher Talk), using analysis of variancetechniques, no significant effect was found for the variable of OpenQuestions. A summary of this analysis is presented in Table 8.

17

Table 8 - Analysis of Covariancea of Treatments by Audio-taping for Open Questions/Total Questions

Source of Variation 0000 df MS

Between subjects 23

R 0.001 2 0.0005 0.315

PWR 0.064 21 0.0038

Adjusted for covariance (17)

Within subjects 48

A 0.015 2 0.0075 1.0416

RA 0.009 4 0.0023 0.3125

AlWR 0.272 42 0.0072

Adjusted for covariance (38)

A = AudiotapeR = Treatment GroupRA= Interaction of Audiotape and Treatment GroupPWR = Persons nested within Treatment GroupAPWR= Interaction of Audiotape with Persons Nested within Treatment Group

aCovariates were pre-test measures for Managerial Questions, Closed

Questions: Ti, Teacher Talk, Student Talk

The variable of Pause Time mean was not significant at the .05 level.There was, however, a significant interaction effect of audiotape withtreatment group at the .10 level for this variable (Table 9).

Table 9 - Analysis of Covariance of Treatments by Audio-taping for Pause Time Mean (sec)

Source of Variation SS df MS

Between subjects 23

R 0.180 2 0.9000 1.9819PWR 7.720 21 0.4541Adjusted for covariance (17)

Within subjects 148

A 1.129 2 0.5645 1.7236RA 3.078 4 0.7695 2.3496*APWR 12.447 42 0.3276Adjusted for covariance (38)

*Significant at .10 level (df 4,38)Critical value at .10 level = 2.11

18

When the variable of Pause Time Mean was considered for the three treat-ment groups by audiotaping session, the following information was identi-fied, as is shown in Table 10 and Figure 1, below.

Table 10 - Pause Time Means for Treatment GroupsBy Audiotape Session

AT-1 AT-2 AT-3

0.963 1.526 1.188

R2 1.646 1.312 0.975

R3 1.224 1.346 0.922

The trend of the variable of Pause Time Mean is shown, overtime, in Figure 1.

3.0

2.5

2.0

.;s 1.5

I.0

0.5

0 AT-1 AT-2 AT-3

Figure 1 - Pause Time Means (adjusted for covariance) AcrossAudiotapes by Treatment Groups

19

To determine if the difference in means between the Pause Times ofgroups RI and R2, shown in Figure 1, was significant, a t-test of thesignificance of the difference between two means for independent sampleswas made. The following formula*

t= -3E2

$111 S1 N2sE) ( N1 + N2)

111 + N2 - 2 rily2

t = 0.963 - 1.646

6 42 7c.47)

A.68 3

.4

t = 1.707

.7

To correct for using multiple t-tests, the .05 level of significance wasadopted, so the expected error rate would be .10.

The critical value of t at the .05 level of significance, with 11 df,is 2.201. Therefore, the difference between the means for groups R1and R2 on audiotape I for Pause Time was not significant.

When the Pause Time mean variable was considered for the audio-

taping sessions by treatment group, the following picture resulted(Table 11 and Figure 2).

Table 11 - Pause Time Means for AudiotapeSession by Treatment Group

R1 R2 R3

AT-1 0.963 1.646 1.224

AT-2 1.526 1.312 1.346

AT-3 1.188 0.975 0.922

*Downie and Heath, Basic Statistical Methods, Harper and Row, 1970,p. 165.

20

3.0

2.5

2.0

Ina) 1.5

1.0

0.5

AT-2

TA-3AT 1

MI/

0 R1 R2 R3

Figure 2 - Pause Time Means (adjusted for covariance) AcrossTreatment Groups by Audiotape

The variable of Teacher Talk was significant at the .05 level.There was a significant interaction effect of audiotape with treatmentgroup, shown in Table 12.

Table 12 - Analysis of Covariance of Treatments by Audio-taping for Percentage of Teacher Talk


Between subjects 23

R 0.018 2 0.0090 0.0302PdR 0.506 21 0.2976Adjusted for covariance (17)

Within subjects 48

A 0.011 ---2 0.0055 0.6790RA 0.118 4 0.0295 3.6420*APWR 0.309 42 0.0081Adjusted for covariance (38)


21

This variable was also inspected for the three treatment groupsby audiotaping session, as shown in Table 13 and Figure 3.

Table 13 - Means for Teacher Talk for TreatmentGroups by Audiotape Session

AT=1 AT-2 AT-3

Ri 0.433 0.348 0.398

R, 0.331 0.362 0.315

R3 0.308 0.375 0.355

100 -90 -

80-70

60

50

40 - RiR2

30 - R3

20 -10 -

0 AT-1 AT-2 AT-3

Figure 3 - Teacher Talk (adjusted for covariance) Across

Audiotapes by Treatment Groups

22

When the variable of Teacher Talk was considered from the perspectiveof the three audiotapes by treatment grcup, the information presented inTable 14 and Figure 4 was identified.

.able 14 - Means for Teacher Talk for AudiotapeSession by Treatment Group

111 R2 R3

AT-1 0.433 0.331 0.308

AT-2 0.348 0.362 0.375

AT-3 0.398. 0.315 0.355

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

I0

0

we

R1 R2 R3

Figure 4 - Teacher Talk (adjusted for covariance) AcrossTreatment Groups by Audiotapes

23

An additional variable, Rhetorical Questions, although not one ofthe criterion variables, exhibited a significant effect.- The significanteffect was in the audiotap.ng, shown in Table 15.

Table 15 - Analysis of Variance for Rhetorical Questions/Total Questions Audiotapes I, II and III


Between subjects 23R 0.005 2 0.0025 0.4310FWR 0.100 21 0.0058Adjusted for covariance (17)

Within subjects 48A 0.039 2 0.0195 6.0937*RA 0.016 4 0.0040 1.2500APWR 0.121 42 0.0032Adjusted for covariance (38)


To determine where the significant difference occurred, the Tukeymethod for testing differences between means was used (38:77, 87). Themeans for audiotapes I, II, and III were 0.094, 0.065, 0.053, respec-tively.

Table 16 - Audiotape Adjusted Means Differences forRhetorical Questions/Total Questions

AT-3 AT-2 AT-1

AT-3

AT-2

AT-1

0 .012

0

.041

.029

0

Using the following formula, the critical difference between means wascalculated.

Xi - Xj = qmW

24

q = 2.86 (studentized range statistic, df = 2,38)

MSe = variance estimate (within groups)

n = group size

The critical difference between means was then calculated.

Critical difference = 2.86 4.003224

=2.86347.T

= .032

The difference of AT-3 and AT-1, .041, exceeded the critical difference,indicating that there was a significant decrease of the use of RhetoricalQuestions from the first audiotape to the third.

Polynomial Regression Results: Four Tapes

Each of the twelve variables was analyzed by polynomial regression(BMD05R0 for each of the three treatment groups, using data from the pre-test lesson and from the three lessons audiotaped in the elementaryschools.) The analyses were tests for significance of linear, quadratic,and cubic relationships of the dependent variables across audiotapings.The statistical test used was the F-ratio from analysis of variance.

One criterion variable and several other variables were found tohave F-ratios at or above the .05 level of significance. The criterionvariable exhibiting an F-ratio at the .05 level of significance wasTeacher Talk.

The F-ratio indicating a linear regression was the largest for eachof the three treatment groups when Teacher Talk was analyzed. The F-ratios are shown in Table 17.

25

Table 17 - F-Ratios Resulting from Analysis of Variance

for Polynomial Regression, Goodness of FitTest, for Teacher Talk Variable

rblynomial Treatment GroupR2

F df

1st degree (linear) 8.84 (1,22)

2nd degree (quadratic) 8.10 (2,21)

3rd degree (cubic) 5.21 (3,20)

F df F df

6.90 (1,26) l0.47 (1,54)

4.6o (2,25) 9.48 (2,53)

3.88 (3,24) 7.51 (3,52)

Critical values at .05 level for R1 = 4.30

112 = 4.22

R3 = 4.02

Table 18 contains a summary of the means for each of the taping sessionsfor each treatment group for the variable of Teacher Talk.

Table 18 - Means for Per Cent of Teacher Talk for theFour Taping Sessions by Treatment Group

Treatment Taping Session

Group Pre-Test AT-1 AT-2 AT-3

111 76 42 34 39

R2 54 36 39 34

R3 52 33 35 34

Figure 5 contains a plot of the Teacher Talk variable over the fourtaping sessions (pre-test and three audiotapes) by treatment group.

Although there were no F-ratios at the .05 level of significancefor the variables of Open Questions and Pause Time, plots of these twocriterion variables are also included to provide reference points whenthe results presented in this section are interpreted in the next sec-tion of the report.

26

90 80 70 60 50qo

40 30 20 I0 0P

re -

test

AT

- I

AT

-2A

T-3

Figure 5 - Plot of Teacher Talk Variable over the Four Taping

Sessions by Treatment Group

Table 19 contains a summary of the means for the percentage of OpenQuestions for the four taping sessions by treatment group. Figure 6 isthe plot illustrating the trend of this variable over time.

Table 19 - Means for Per Cent Open Questions for theFour Taping Sessions by Treatment Group

TreatmentGroup

Taping SessionPre-Test AT-1 AT-2 AT-3

111 14 09 05 07

R2 12 10 10 10

R3 15 12 07 10

Pause Time, the third criterion variable, also did not exhibit anyF-ratios at the .05 level of significance for any of the treatmentgroups. Nevertheless, information concerning its trend over time isincluded here, in Table 20 and Figure 7, as reference material for theinterpretation of the data.

Table 20 - Means for Pause Time Mean for the FourTaping Sessions by Treatment Group

Treatment Taping SessionGroup Pre-Test AT-1 AT-2 AT-3

Ri 1.49 1.04 1.60 1.26

R2 1.11 1.56 1.22 0.89

R3 1.37 1.12 1.29 1.02

Information concerning two other variables, Managerial Questionsand Student Talk, is included here because both of these variablesexhibited F-ratios at or above the .05 la-rel of significance in theanalysis of variance for the polynomial 'uession program.

Table 21 contains a summary of the F-ratios for the Percentage ofManagerial Questions Variable.

28

\0

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 I0 0P

re-t

est

AT

-1A

T-2

AT

-3

Figure 6 - Plot of Open Question Percentages over the Four Taping


Pre

-tes

tA

T I

AT

-2A

T-3

Figure 7 - Plot og Pause Time Mean over the Four Taping Sessions

by Treatment Group

Table 21 - F-Ratios Resulting from Analysis of Variance forPolynomial Regression, Goodness of Fit Test, for

Per Cent Managerial Questions Variable

Polynomial Treatment GrouR1 R2 R3

F df F df F df1st degree (linear) 5.23 (1,22) 1.28 (1,26) 2.92 (1.54)

2nd degree (quadratic) 2.52 (2,21) 1.24 (2,25) 2.97 (2,53)

3rd degree (cubic) 2.16 (3,20) 0.97 (3,24) 1.98 (3,52)

Critical value for R1 = 4.30.05 level of significance R2 = 4.22

R3 = 4.02

Only one treatment group, R1, exhibited a significant F-ratio for linearregression for this variable (a = 4.30, df = 1,22).

Table 22 contains the means for percentage of the Managerial Ques-tions variable for the four taping sessions by treatment group.

Table 22 - Means for Per Cent Managerial Questions for theFour Taping Sessions by Treatment Group

TreatmentGroup

Taping SessionPre-Test AT-1 AT-2 AT-3

Ri 15 24 21 32

R2 16 24 22 22

R3 26 22 26 32

Figure 8 shows the plot of this variable over time.

The F-ratios resulting from the analysis of variance for poly-nomial regression, goodness of fit test, for the variable of StudentTalk are presented in Table 23.

31

Table 23 - F-Ratios Resulting from Analysis of Variance

for Polynomial Regression, Goodness of FitTest, for Student Talk Variable

Polynomial Treatment GroupR2 R3

F df F df F df1st degree (linear) 15.00 (1,22) 3.42 (1,26) 29.23 (1,54)


3rd degree (cif,ic) 6.07 (3,20) 1.67 (3,24) 16.50 (3,52)

Critical values at .01 level of significance R1 = 7.94R2 = 7.22R3 = 7.11

Both treatment groups R1 and R3, exhibited F-ratios that weresignificant at the .01 level. The largest F-ratio for treatment groupR2 did not approach even the .05 level of significance (a = 4.22, df =1,26).

Table 24 contains a summary of the means of the variable of StudentTalk for the four taping sessions by treatment group.

Table 24 - Means for Student Talk for the FourTaping Sessions by Treatment Group

TreatmentGroup

Taping Session

Pie-Test AT-1 AT-2 AT-3

R1 06 20 19 29

R2 14 25 23 27

R3 08 25 27 28

Figure 9 shows the plot for the variable of Student Talk overtime for each treatment group.

33

Pre

-tes

tA

T-I

AT

-2A

T-3

Figure 9 - Plot of Student Talk Variable overthe Four Taping


Polynomial Regression Results: Three Tapes

Data from only the three science lessons.audiotaped in the ele-mentary schools were also analyzed by polynomial regression to determineif the information would differ from that resulting when data from thepre-test lessons (involving peers acting as ninth grade students) wereincluded.

When only the three audiotaped lessons were analyzed, a differentpicture resulted. Fewer variables were found to have F-ratios at orabove the .05 level of significance. The variable of Teacher Talk, theonly one of the three criterion variables found to have an F-ratio atthe .05 level of significance when data from the four taping sessionswere combined, did not exhibit an F-ratio at the .05 level of signifi-cance for any of the three treatment groups.

The criterion variable of Pause Time did exhibit an F-ratio at the.05 level of significance for treatment group R2 when only the threelessons audiotaped in the elementary schools were analyzed.

Table 25 - F-Ratios Resulting from Analysis of Variancefor Polynomial Regression, Goodness of FitTest, for Pause Time Variable

Polynomial Treatment GroupR1 R2 R3

F df F df F df

1st degree (linear) 0.29 (1,16) 4.97 (1,19) 0.22 (1,40)


Critical values at .05 level Ri = 4.49R2 = 4.38R3 = 4.08

Figure 10 illustrates the plot of the Pause Time variable overthe time period involved in Quarter Two of the study`for the threetreatment groups.

When the polynomial regression data for treatment group R1 wereanalyzed, the variable of per cent of Rhetorical Questions was found toexhibit an F-ratio at the .05 level of significance. This informationis contained in Tables 26 and 27 and Figure 11.

35

1.80

1.60

140

1.20

1.00co

(%1°) 0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0

MO

Ise

Iwo

AT-1 AT-2 AT-3

Figure 10 - Plot of Pause Time Variable over the Three Audiotapes

by Treatment Group

Table 26 - F-Ratios Resulting from Analysis of Variance forPolynomial Regression, Goodness of Fit Test,for Per Cent Rhetorical Questions Variable

PolynomialTreatment Group

R1 R2 R3

1st degree (linear) 7.01 0.02 1.83

2nd degree (quadratic) 3.26 0.22 0.96

36

Table 27 - Means for Rhetorical Question PercentagesVariable for the Three Audiotapes byTreatment Group

Treatment Taping SessionGroup AT-1 AT-2 AT-3

R1 13 02

R2 06 07 05

R3 08 06 05

The plot of the trend of the variable of per cent of RhetoricalQuestions over time is shown in Figure 11.

70

60

50

40'41

30

20

I0

0

MID

R2

AT-I AT-2 AT-3

Figure 11 - Plot of Percent Rhetorical'Questions Variable over theThree Audiotapes by Treatment Group

37

The variable of the percentage of Managerial Questions had beenfound to exhibit an F-ratio, linear regression, at the .05 level ofsignificance for treatment group R1 when data from the four tapingsessions were analyzed by polynomial regression. When pre-test datawere removed from the analysis, the variable of percentage of Mana-gerial Questions was still found to exhibit an F-ratio at the .05level of significance. However, in the data analysis for the threeaudiotapes, this F-ratio was found in treatment group R3.

Table 28 contains information relative to the analysis of varianceresults for the per cent Managerial Questions variable for the threeaudiotapes.

Table 28 - F-Ratios Resulting from Analysis of Variance forPOlynomd-" Tression, Goodness of Fit Test,for Per . Aanagerial Questions Variable

Polynomial Treatment Group

1st degree(linear)

2nd degree(quadratic)

1.50

1.45

0.08

0.06

6.02

3.02

Critical values at .05 level R1 = 4.49, df = 1,16R, = 4.38, df = 1,19R3 = 4.08, df = 1,40

The means for the Managerial Question Percentage variable are pre-sented in Table 22. The plot for the variable for the three audio-taping sessions is shown in Figure 12.

38

70

60

50

400

30

20

I0

0

IM1

Imo

I I I

AT-I AT-2 AT-3

Figure 12 - Plot of Managerial Question Percentages Variable over theThree Audiotapes by Treatment Group

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

In this section, each of the hypotheses will be treated separately,using appropriate data reported in the preceding section of this report.

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1: There is no significant effect of duration massedvs. distributed practice) of the instructional sequence on skilldevelopment in questioning. When the three criterion variables assumedto provide evidence for questioning skill development: Open Questions,Pause Time, and Teacher Talk are considered, Hypothesis 1 cannot berejected.

There were no significant differences (.05 level) between treat-ment groups for the variables of Open Questions, Pause Time mean, andTeacher Talk.

It would appear that, for the sample population of this study,neither the massed practice of five group sessions taking place withina seven week period (treatment groups R2 and R3) nor the more distrib-uted practice of five group sessions spread over a fourteen-week period(treatment group R1) differed in effectiveness in causing the subjectsto develop skill in asking Open Questions.

There was a significant interaction between treatment and audio-taping (see Table 9) at the .10 level of significance for the variableof Pause Time. When the difference in means between the Pause Timemeans of treatment groups R1 and R2 for the first audiotaping (seeTable 10 and Fig. 1) was tested, using a t-test of the significance ofthe difference between two means for independent samples, this differ-ence was not significant.

Again, there was a significant difference for the interaction ofaudiotaping with treatment group for the variable of Teacher Talk (seeTable 12) but there was no significant difference between treatmentgroups for this variable.

Hypothesis 1 could not be rejected on the basis of the evidenceavailable in this study.

Hypothesis 2

huothesis 2: There is no significant trend over time in develop-ment of questioning skill. The results of the tests of this hypothesiswill be discussed first in terms of the three criterion variables:Open Questions, Pause Time, and Teacher Talk. Additional variables forwhich significant effects were identified by polynomial regressionanalyses will also be included in the discussion.

40

When the criterion variable of asking Open Questions is considered,there was no significant trend in questioning skill development as evi-denced by this variable.

The largest mean percentage of Open Questions asked by any of thetreatment groups was a mean of 15 per cent, asked by the members oftreatment group R3 during the pre-test lesson. It should be recalledthat the pupils for the pre-test lessons were peers who had been in-structed to play the roles of ninth grade students. These microteach-ing lessons were videotaped in the early part of Quarter One of thestudy, before the college students had had much experience in the publicschools.

When the pupils were elementary school children, the largest meanwas 12 per cent Open Questions asked during the first audiotaping ses-sion, by. treatment group R3. The mean for treatment group R3 decreasedfor audiotape two and increased slightly for audiotape three.

Treatment group R1 exhibited a trend over time similar to that oftreatment group R3: a decrease from first to second audiotapes and aslight increase for the third audiotape.

Treatment group R2 had the same mean percentage (10%) of OpenQuestions for each of the three lessons audiotaped in the elementaryschools. The trend over time did not vary for the lessons recordedduring Quarter Two of the study for treatment group R2.

The criterion variable of Pause Time, when tested by polynomialregression analysis techniques, did not exhibit any F-ratios at the.05 level of significance for any of the treatment groups when datafrom the four taping sessions were considered (see Table 18). However,when pre-test data were not included and only data from the three les-soni audiotaped in the elementary schools were analyzed, the variableof Pause Time exhibited an F-ratio for linearity at the .05 level ofsignificance for treatment group R2 (see Table 25).

The plot of the Pause Time variable over the four taping sessionsis shown in Figures 7 and 10, for the three audiotaping sessions. Whenthe trend aver time is studied for the four tapes, it is apparent thatthe Pause Time mean drops from the pre-test tape to the first audiotapein the schools for both groups R1 and R3. The mean of Pause Timeincreases from the pre-test tape to the first audiotape for treatmentgroup R2.

As the audiotaping continues, the Pause Time mean increases forboth groups R1 and R3 for the second audiotape and then decreases forthe third. The Pause Time mean for treatment group R2 continues todecrease, despite the fact that treatment group R2 was the group cur-rently receiving instruction in questioning.

41

When inspecting the plot of the Pause Time variable over time, itis apparent that group R1 made the largest gain in pausing from audio-tape one to audiotape two, although group R3 also showed an increasein Pause Time. There is a possible interpretation for this circumstance.Treatment group R3 had received instruction in questioning during thefirst quarter of the study, following the pre-test lesson. All of theinstruction for treatment group R3 was completed during Quarter One of

the study. Treatment group R1 received the largest portion of instruc-tion during Quarter One of the study (see Appendix B for details of theinstructional sequence). The remainder of the instruction took placeafter the first audiotaping in the schools and before the second audio-taping.

In addition, members of all three treatment groups were asked tolisten to their audiotape and complete a self-evaluation of their ques-tioning behavior, using a form supplied by the investigator (see Appen-

dix E). Following this self-evaluation, members of treatment groupsR1 and R2 had mandatory evaluation conferences with the investigator inwhich they discussed their questioning abilities and methods for pos-sible improvement. These individual conferences were optional formembers of treatment group R3. The majority, but not all, of the mem-bers of treatment group R3 chose to take advantage of the opportunityto discuss their questioning techniques.

Members of treatment groups R3 and R1 had had the opportunity toassimilate information about questioning prior to working with smallgroups or the total class in a discussion situation. Members of treat-ment group R2 were receiving the instruction concurrent with theirattempts to put it into practice. It would appear that, for the behav-ior of pausing in order to allow students time to think, prior instruc-tion combined with review, reinforcement and evaluation (self, other)was more effective in producing an increase in Pause Time than waseither prior instruction with self-evaluation or concurrent instructioncombined with evaluation (self, other).

It would also appear, based on viewing the trend over time of thePause Time mean for treatment group R2, that providing individuals withsome instruction in a particular skill concurrent with expecting themto demonstrate some competency in that skill is the least effectivesituation. Members of treatment group R2 received instruction in ques-tioning, read and discussed the material contained in the handbook onquestioning techniques (developed by the investigator), and were appar-ently able to accept the rationale for pausing and to demonstrate thisbehavior during the first audiotape. As their teaching continued, theyappeared to become less concerned with using this questioning technique(see Table 25 and Fig. 10).

There was a change in Pause Time mean over tapings in the elemen-tary schools. Although the Pause Time mean increased for two groups(R1 and R3) for the second audiotaping, it decreased for the third

42

audiotaping. A possible explanation for this occurrence might be thatthe self-evaluation continued but that conferences with the investigatorwere optional and at the discretion of the pre-service teacher. A fewasked for additional conferences but the majority did not. The infer-ence 'nay be made that the pre-service teachers were not sufficiently

sophisticated in the self-evaluation of questioning to be able to analyzetheir behavior and to develop alternatives designed to improve theirquestioning techniques. When additional guidance and instruction werenot provided, any gains that had been made were cancelled by the demandsof teaching and the existing situation in the classroom.

The criterion variable of Teacher Talk exhibited an F-ratio at the.05 level of significance when data from the four taped lessons weresubjected to polynomial regression analysis. There was a linear regres-sion of this variable for each treatment group (see Table 17). Whenthe data relative to the pre-test lessons were removed from the poly-nomial regression analysis and only the three lessons audiotaped in theschools were considered, there were no F-ratios at the .05 level ofsignificance for any of the treatment groups.

Although the trend over time was a linear one, indicating a decreasein teacher talk (see Figure 5), this decrease in teacher talk may havebeen produced by a change in pupil population rather than by instruc-tion in questioning techniques. The means for Teacher Talk decreasedmarkedly when the pre-test data are compared with those of the firstaudiotape (see Table 18). In the previous study on questioning skilldevelopment completed by the investigator (4), subjects who receivedinstruction in questioning were able to exhibit decreased Teacher Talkduring the instructional sequence. They were not able to demonstratedecreased Teacher Talk at a level of significance (.10 level) duringtheir student teaching in the public secondary schools.

Relating this information to that of the study being currentlyreported, it seems possible to infer that some of the reduction inTeacher Talk was due to instruction in questioning although the influ-ence of having children as pupils (as compared to peers in the pre-testlessons) cannot be ignored.

The means for the Teacher Talk variable in this study are lowerthan the average amount of Teacher Talk stated by Flanders* who saidthat, in most classrooms, 70 per cent of the time some one is talkingand 70 per cent of that time, the speaker is the teacher. The majorityof the studies of classroom interaction which this investigator hasreviewed do not contain reports of percentages of Teacher Talk which

*Flanders, N.A. Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes, and Achievement.Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education and. Welfare, Officeof Education, Cooperative Research Monograph No. 12.

43

are as low as those identified in this research project. Many of thestudies of classroom interaction in science lessons have been completed

at the secondary school level. It is not possible, therefore, to makeany comparisons and generalizations about the effectiveness of the

instruction in questioning vs. the pupil population involved relativeto the amount of Teacher Talk reported for the individuals involved inthis research and in the populations in other research studies.

A possible explanation of the marked decrease in Teacher Talk dur-ing Quarter Two of the study involves both questioning behavior of thepre-service teachers and the behavior of their pupils. The pre-service

teachers had been emphatically told that "effective" teachers (thosewho make it possible for their pupils to learn) do not dominate theverbal interaction of the classroom. The investigator had attemptedto personify this model (a teacher who acted as a facilitator ratherthan a lecturer) during the instructional sequence on questioning andencouraged much interaction by, and among) students during the meetings.If the pre-service teachers accepted this model as a desirable one, andthey apparently did--judging from comments in their written logs and inseminar discussions, they no doubt planned and conducted their sciencelessons so that student talk was encouraged (see Tables 21, 22, and Fig.

9). They acted to decrease Teacher Talk and, as a concomitant effect,

to allow for increased Student Talk.

In addition, elementary school children are, for the most part,open, affectionate, and eager to please their teachers. The pre-serviceteachers wanted to encourage their students to respond so they askedquestions which their pupils would have a chance of answering correctly

and operated primarily at the level of factual-recall, using Closed

Questions. The children knew the information about which they were

questioned and were eager to respond.

This situation resulted in a decrease in Teacher Talk (as well asa decrease in Pause Time) for all three treatment groups. The trend

over time, for the three lessons audiotaped in the elementary schools,for treatment group R1 was for a decrease in the mean of Teacher Talkfrom audiotape one to audiotape two followed by an increase in Teacher

Talk mean for audiotape three. The decrease between tapes one and twomay, again, reflect the influence of the remainder of instruction, andself-evaluation combined with the evaluation conference with the inves-

tigator.

Treatment groups R2 and R3 exhibited an increase in the mean ofthe Teacher Talk variable between audiotapes one and two, followed by

a decrease for the third audiotape. Although the trend over time issimilar for both of these treatment groups, treatment group R2 exhibits

more Teacher Talk than does R3. Again, it may be speculated thatinstruction provided prior to the time of application of a skill orbehavior is more effective than instruction provided concurrent withapplication, at least for the individuals involved in this study.

1414

In testing Hypothesis 2, relative to the significant effects oftime on questioning skill development, some variables in addition tothe criterion variables were examined because they exhibited F-ratiosat the .05 level of significance when the data were analyzed, usingpolynomial regression techniques. The variable of Managerial Questionsexhibited a significant (.05 level) F-ratio for treatment group R1 whendata from the four taping sessions were analyzed (see Table 21). Whenthe means for Managerial Questions were reviewed (see Table 22) and thevariable was plotted over time (Fig. 8) Treatment group R1 appeared toincrease the mean percentage of Managerial Questions asked during

Quarter Two of the study, at least compared with the mean for this vari-able for the pre-test lessons.

However, when data for only the three lessons audiotaped in theelementary schools during Quarter Two of the study were analyzed bypolynomial regression, tc test Hypothesis 2, treatment group R1 did notexhibit any significant F-ratios. Instead, treatment group B2 wasfound to exhibit a significant F-ratio for linearity for ManagerialQuestions, indicating a decrease in the percentage of Managerial Ques-tions over time (see Table 28, and Fig. 12) in the elementary school.

There was no particular emphasis placed on the use of ManagerialQuestions. The pre-service teachers involved in the study were madeaware of the characteristics and uses of Managerial Questions but nodirect effort was made to modify their use. Any changes over time inthe percentage of Managerial Questions asked during a lesson resultedfrom interaction of teacher and pupils and the flow of the lessonrather than from instruction in questioning.

The variable of Student Talk also exhibited an F-ratio at the .01level of significance when the four tapes 'ere analyzed by the use ofpolynomial regression analysis (Table 23) When polynomial regressionwas used with only the lessons audiotaped in the elementary schools,the variable of Student Talk no longer exhibited any F-ratios at a levelof significance (.05). It would appear, then, that the pupil populationwas primarily responsible for the change in the amount of Student Talk.When Student Talk was plotted over time for the four tapes (Fig. 9)there was seen to be an increase in the mean of this variable over timefor the four tapes. The circumstances of the lesson rather than anyinstruction in questioning probably produced the changes identified inStudent Talk.

When polynomial regression techniques were used to analyze the dataresulting from the analyses of the lessons audiotaped in the elementaryschool, the variable of Rhetorical Questions was found to exhibit asignificant F-ratio (.05 level) for treatment group R1 (Tables 26 andand 27). When this variable was plotted over time, the mean rercentageof Rhetorical Questions asked was found to decrease.

45

No particular emphasis was placed on the avoidance of RhetoricalQuestions during the instructional sequence. However, the fact wasemphasized that by decreasing the use of Rhetorical Questions, a teachercould decrease the amount of Teacher Talk. Changes over time in the useof Rhetorical Questions were also probably influenced by circumstancesin the classrooms but instruction in questioning and taping appear tohave helped to produce the decrease for treatment group Ri.

To summarize the interpretation of the results used to testhypothesis 2 concerning significant effects of time on questioning skilldevelopment, the data which bear most directly on this hypothesis appearto result from the polynomial regression analysis results involving thethree science lessons audiotaped in the elementary schools. Rejectionor non-rejection of this hypothesis is based on data concerning thethree criterion variables: Open Questions, Pause Time, and Teacher Talk.Hypothesis 2 cannot be rejected for the variable of Open Questions. It

can be rejected for the variable of Pause Time, based on the evidencethat the Pause Time mean decreased over time for treatment group R2.Hypothesis 2 cannot be rejected for the variable of Teacher Talk.

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3: There are no differential effects in treatmentsacross audiotaping sessions for the criterion variables: Open Questions,Pause Time, Teacher Talk. Some of the interpretation of the resultsrelative to testing this hypothesis have previously been elaboratedupon in the interpretation of results relative to Hypothesis 2. How-ever, the primary sources of information used to test this hypothesisare found in the results of the multiple comparison analysis of variancetests.

With respect to the criterion variable of Open Questions, therewere no significant effects with respect to the interaction of audio-tape and treat%ent group (Table 8). Hypothesis 3 cannot be rejectedwith respect to this particular criterion variable.

There was a significant effect at the .10 level of significancefor the variable of Pause Time but not at the .05 level of significancewhich was chosen as the alpha level for this study (Table 9). Hypo-thesis 3 cannot be rejected with respect to the criterion variable ofPause Time.

There was significant interaction effect at the .05 level of sig-nificance for the criterion variable of Teacher Talk for the interactionof audiotape with treatment group (see Table 12). Hypothesis 3 can berejected with respect to the criterion variable of Teacher Talk.

When the means of the Teacher Talk variable (adjusted for covariance)were graphed across audiotapes one, two and three by treatment groups,the trend over time for groups R, and R3 was similar (See Fig. 3)..

Both groups exhibited an increase in the mean percentage of TeacherTalk from audiotape one to audiotape two, followed by a decrease foraudiotape three. Treatment group RI decreased the mean percentage ofTeacher Talk from audiotape one to audiotape two, followed by anincrease for audiotape three.

When the mean percentages of Teacher Talk were graphed acrosstreatment groups by audiotapes (see Fig. 4), the respective positionsof the three treatment groups were found to differ for different tap-ing sessions. For both audiotapes one and three, treatment group R1exhibited the largest mean percentage of Teacher Talk. For audiotapetwo, treatment group R2 had the largest mean percentage of Teacher Talk.

If the means for only audiotape three are inspected, treatmentgroup R2 is found to have the smallest mean percentage of Teacher Talk.Having recent instruction combined with instruction in questioning con-current with application in the classroom may have resulted in a dif-ferential effect for the variable of Teacher Talk for treatment groupR,.

In summary, Hypothesis 3 cannot be rejected for the criterionvariables of Open Questions and Pause Time. Hypothesis 3 can berejected for the criterion variable of Teacher Talk.

CONCLUSIONS

Generalizations involving the results of this study are limitedby the characteristics of the population sampled and by the accuracyof the interpretations of the data obtained.

This group appears representative of the population of prospectivesecondary school science teachers enrolled at The Ohio State University.Based on changes identified in this study, it appears that skill develop-ment in questioning is best facilitated by moderate to extensive instruc-tion prior to the demonstration of the behaviors in the schools asrecorded on audiotape. Review appears to increase the benefit of priorinstruction and audiotaping. The Pause Time mean increases more underthese conditions than if little instruction has occurred prior to audio-taping. The effect of the audiotaping on the reduction of Teacher Talkis greater when the subject has had previous instruction of a distributednature.

The subjects' frequency of using Rhetorical Questions decreasessignificantly with the instruction on questioning and the audiotapingsessions. Because the greatest reduction in the use of RhetoricalQuestions occurs between the first and second audiotapings, it wouldseem that the tape sessions had a great influence. The significant

47

reduction in use of Rhetorical Questions comes primarily in the data fortreatment group RI which had distributed instruction.

The results would support providing questioning instruction in adistributed fashion to the students and then holding an audiotaping ses-sion with follow-up activities for maximum change. If this were donein cycles, with a different major emphasis in each cycle, it might bepossible to get the maximum gain for the skill being emphasized as wellas perhaps providing an effect needed to increase retention of all theother questioning behaviors.

If questioning is a teaching skill that does not differ markedlyin acquisition from other skills stressed in science methods courses,specifically those related to laboratory techniques, the results ofthis study may support the contention that the enrollment of pre-servicescience teachers in methods concurrent with student teaching is not aneffective way to promote skill development and utilization. Perhaps amore efficient (in terms of skill development and acquisition over time)curriculum design is that in which methodology and relevant backgroundinformation are provided pre - service teachers before these individualsare asked to use the techniques in actual teaching situatons. Thisintroduction and practice would be followed later by review and morepractice as the pre-service teachers attempt to use the teaching tech-niques in public school classrooms.

The questioning behavior of decreasing Teacher Talk to providemore time in class for pupil talk appears the most easily acquired ofthe three criterion behaviors involved in the study. Working withchildren, rather than with peers, during the instructional sequenceappears to be the better practice situation for decreasing Teacher Talk.

Learning to pause after asking a question appears to be the nextbehavior to be acquired. If, however, a pre-service teacher who hasdeveloped some degree of skill in pausing does not make an effort toemphasize the fact to his pupils that they are expected to use thispause time to think before volunteering a response, the purpose ofpausing is negated.

The skill of asking Open Questions appears to be the most difficultto learn. If one were allowed to extrapolate beyond the data at hand,the inference might be made that only after individuals gain confidencein themselves in the role of teacher are they able to develop consistentskill in asking Open Questions.

Skill development in questioning as exemplified by the teacherbehaviors of asking Open Questions, pausing, and decreasing the percent-age of teacher talk should be considered with respect to the type ofstudent population as well as to lesson objectives and to the durationof the instructional sequence. Conditions in the classroom may havemore influence on the questioning behaviors exhibited than do instruc-tion and practice insofar as pre-service teachers are concerned.

48

Pre-service teachers need to gain experience in evaluating theirquestioning performance but they also need guidance and reinforcementas they gain experience in both teaching and questioning.

If pre-service teachers are expected to evidence ability to utilizequestioning skills in the classroom, the expectation of such evidencemust be stressed. It must not be assumed to result as an outcome ofhaving to tape-record a science lesson. If questioning skills are con-sidered important enough to acquire that time is set aside for thepractice of the skill, then perhaps the demonstration of the desiredquestioning behaviors must play a greater part in the final evaluationof the pre-service teacher's classroom behavior. Being able to demon-strate skill on demand does not provide any guarantee that the pre-service teacher will continue to practice and use this skill when notobserved and evaluated. It does, however, provide some external rein-forcement of the importance of questioning as a teaching technique.

Questioning behavior does appear to change over time although thechanges are not always significant ones, in the statistical sense, norare the changes always in the directions desired. Periodic refresheror review sessions about questioning techniques appear to influence thedevelopment of skill in questioning. College juniors do not appear tobe sufficiently experienced in self-evaluation to be able to identifyareas in which they need to modify their questioning behavior. Closersupervisory contact relative to questioning appears necessary if desiredgains are to be be maintained over time and experience in working inthe public school classrooms where many individuals and factors demandthe pre-service teacher's time, energy, and concern.

Questioning behavior may be influenced not only by practice, thepoint in a pre-service teacher's educational program at which he ismade aware that questioning techniques are a skill that can be learnedand developed, the student population, the objectives of the lesson,and the duration of instruction, but also by the pre-service teacher'sperception of his primary responsibility as a science teacher (trans-mitter of knowledge vs. facilitator of learning).

RECOMMEXDAT IONS

There are several recommendations which should be made relative tofurther research. Although the length of the instructional sequenceused in this study was longer than that involved in the previous doctoralresearch, the individuals involved in the most recent research projectwere no more able to develop the skill of asking Open Questions at alevel of significance than were the subjects of the doctoral study.Perhaps some modifications of the instructional sequence need to bemade to provide greater emphasis and/or more o:pport:nities to practice

49

formulating and using Open Questions. These modifications then need to

be tested to determine how performance is changed.

Perhaps, as has been inferred earlier in this report, pre-serviceteachers lack sufficient confidence in themselves in the role of teacheras well as sufficient experience in working with pupils to be willing

to attempt to use Open Questions in class discussions. The use of Open

Questions may be termed a "high risk" teaching strategy in that OpenQuestions, by the very nature of their definition (having a wide rangeof acceptable responses), imply that part of the control of the contentand flow of the discussion is delegated to the pupils involved ratherthan being the sole responsibility of the teacher.

Research needs to be done to determine how pre-service teachersfeel about allowing their pupils to share in the control of the class

discussions. Pre-service teachers could then be grouped for analysis

purposes on the basis of their willingness to share control and their

questioning behavior during and after instruction could be analyzed.

An additional factor which should be tested is the influence of apre-service teacher's perception of his major function as a science

teacher. Do individuals who consider their primary purpose to be thetransmission of a large body of factual information respond differentlyto instruction in questioning and perform differently in the scienceclassroom than do those individuals who consider that, as scienceteachers, their primary aim should be to help their pupils to be inde-

pendent learners?

How much influence does practice with peers rather than with pupilsof the age the pre-service teacher plans to teach have on the resultantdemonstration of a teaching behavior such as questioning when the pre -

oervice teacher works in the public schools? More research concerningthis question needs to be done.

The students who participated in the present study were tested forquestioning skill development while they were working with an age groupwhich was unfamiliar to them and whic!, they did not plan to teach upongraduation from college. Further research needs to be done on thequestioning behaviors of pre-service teachers when they are working atthe secondary school level, to determine if their questioning behaviorin junior and senior high school science classes differs from thequestioning behavior they use when working with elementary school child-

ren.

A longitudinal study should be conducted in which the individualswho participated in the present study are observed when they becomesecondary school science teachers to determine how their behaviorchanges with time and additional teaching experience.

Research needs to be done to determine the optimal pattern ofinstruction in questioning for pre-service teachers who are enrolled

in an undergraduate program that involves more than the customary twoquarters of work in the major area. Given continued contact with apre-service teacher, how frequently and at what points in the under-graduate program should the college supervisors emphasize questioningbehavior?

A research study might be designed in which one treatment grouptaught peers while a second group worked with pupils of the age levelthey would ultimately teach. If the population were sufficiently large,two additional treatment groups might be included; one in which peerteaching was combined with a series of videotaped lessons in -hichdesired questioning behaviors were modeled, and a second in which theuse of the model tapes was combined with teaching public school pupilsduring the instructional sequence in questioning.

Research might be conducted in a controlled experiment to determinewhat influence the effect of a grade in questioning skill demonstrationmade, in questioning behavior during the time for which the grade wasassigned and in subsequent teaching when the pressure of having todemonstrate questioning ability for evaluative purposes, other thanself-evaluation, was removed.

51/5)-

REFERENCES CITED

1. Adams, Thomas K. "The Development of a Method for Analysis ofQuestions Asked by Teachers in Classroom Discussion," Disserta-tion Abstracts, XXV, 1964, pp. 2809-2810.

2. Amidon, Peggy J. "An Analysis of Teacher Questions." Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Los Angeles, California, February, 1969.

3. Bereit, Virginia F. "Relationships Between Training in Analyzingand Performing Selected Teaching Behaviors and Subsequent Student

Teacher Behavior," Dissertation Abstracts, XXXII, 1971, pp. 3131-3132.

4. Blosser, Patricia E. "A Study of the Development of the Skill ofEffective Questioning by Prospective Secondary School ScienceTeachers." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio StateUniversity, 1970.

5. Boeck, Marjorie A. "Experimental Analysis of Questioning Behaviorof Pre-Service Secondary School Science Teachers." UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1971.

6. Bruce, Larry R. "A Determination of the Relationships Among SCISTeachers' Personality Traits, Attitude Toward Teacher-PupilRelationship, Understanding of Science Process Skills and Ques-tion Types." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan StateUniversity, 1969.

7. Clegg, Ambrose A. Jr., Farley, George T., and Curran, Robert U."Training Teachers to Analyze the Cognitive Level of ClassroomQuestioning." Research Report No. 1, Applied Research TrainingProgram, School of Education, University of Massachusetts, June,1967. (Mimeographed.)

8. Clements, R. D. "Art Teacher Classroom Questioning," Art Educa-tion. XVIII (April, 1965), pp. 16-18.

9. Clyde, Dean J. Multivariate Analysis of Variance on Large Computers.Miami, Florida: Clyde Computing Service, 1969.

10. Cross, Janet S. "Development. of an Instructional Program to EnableEnglish Teachers to Improve Discussion Skills." University Micro-films, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1968.

11. Cunningham, Roger T. "A Descriptive Study Determining the Effectsof a Method of Instruction Designed to Improve the Question-Phrasing Practices of Prospective Elementary Teachers." Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1968.

53

12. Davis, 0. L. Jr., and Tinsley, Drew C. "Cognitive Objectives

Revealed by Classroom Questions Asked by Social Studies StudentTeachers," Peabody Journal of Education, XLV (July, 1967),pp. 21-26.

13. Davis, O. L. Jr. et al. Studying the Cognitive Emphases ofTeachers' Classroom Questions. Report Series No. 3, Austin:The Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, TheUniversity of Texas at Austin, 1969.

14. Dixon, W. J. (ed.). BMD Biomedical Computer Programs Universityof California Publications in Automatic Computation No. 2.Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968.

15. Floyd, William D. "An Analysis of the Oral Questioning Activityin Selected Colorado Primary Classrooms." Abstracts of FieldStudies for the Degree of Doctor of Education, 1960. Ann Arbor:University Microfilms, 1961.

16. Gage, N. L. (ed.). Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago:Rand McNally and Company, 1963.

17. Gallagher, James J., and Aschner, M. J. "A Preliminary Report onAnalyses of Classroom Interaction," in Teaching: Vantage Pointsfor Study, R. T. Hyman (ed.), pp. 118-133. Philadelphia: J. B.Lippincott Company, 1968.

18. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education,Fourth ed., Ch. 13, pp. 03-303. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,1965.

19. Houston, V. M. "Improving the Quality of Classroom Questions andQuestioning," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXIV(January, 1938), pp. 17-28.

20. Hunter, Elizabeth. "The Effects of Training in the Use of NewScience Programs upon the Classroom Verbal Behavior of FirstGrade Teachers as They Teach Science," Classroom InteractionNewsletter, IV (May, 1969), pp. 5-11.

21. Hunter, Elizabeth, "Talking in First Grade Classrooms," The UrbanReview, IV (October, 1969), pp. 39-42.

22. Johnson, Robert W. "A Model for Improving In-Service TeacherQuestioning Behavior in Elementary School Science Instruction."Paper presented at the Seventeenth Annual Convention of theNational Science Teachers Association, Dallas, Texas, March 22,1969.

54

23. Kallenbach, Warren. "Results of Pre-service Field Tests of Mini-course 1." Paper presented at the annual meeting Of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Los Angeles, California, Feb-ruary 7, 1969.

24. Kleinman, Gladys S. "General Science Teachers' Questions, Pupiland Teacher Behaviors, and Pupils' Understanding of Science."University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1964.

25. Kondo, Allan K. "The Questioning Behavior of Teachers in theScience Curriculum Improvement Study Teaching Material Objects."Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Associationfor Research in Science Teaching, Pasadena, California, February7, 1969.

26. Konetski, Louis C. "Instructional Effect on Questions Asked byPre-service Science Teachers," Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Indiana University, 1969.

27 Koran, John J. Jr. "The Relative Effects of Classroom Instructionand Subsequent Observational Learning on the Acquisition ofQuestioning Behavior by Pre-service Elementary School Teachers,"Journal of Research in Science Teaching, VI (1969), pp. 217-223.

28. Ladd, George T. "Determining the Level of Inquiry in Teachers'Questions." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana Univer-sity, 1969.

29. Los Angeles City Schools. The Art of Questioning in Science.Los Angeles: Division of Instructional Planning and Services,1967.

30. Masla, J. A. "The Effects of Instruction in Interaction Analysison the Verbal Inquiry Patterns of Elementary Science MethodsStudents." University Microfilms, Anr. Arbor, Michigan, 1968.

31. Moyer, John R. "An Exploratory Study of Questioning in theInstructional Processes in Selected Elementary Schools."University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1965.

32. Parsons, T. W., and Shaftel, F. R. "Thinking and Inquiry: SomeCritical Issues," in Effective Thinking in the Social Studies,Jean Fair and F. R. Shaftel (eds.), pp. 123-166. Thirty-seventhYearbook of the National Council for the Social Studies.Washington: National Education Association, 1967.

33. Pate, R. T. and Bremer, N. H. "Guiding Learning Through SkillfulQuestioning,"4The Elementary School Journal, LXVII (May, 1967),pp. 417-422.

55

34. Rowe, Mary B. "Science, Silence, and ;;,nctions," Science and

Children, VI (March, 1969), pp. 11-13.

35. Schreiber, Joan E. "Teachers' Question-Asking Techniques in Social

Studies." University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967.

36. Shrable, Kenneth, and Minnis, Douglas "Interacting in the Inter-

rogative," The Journal of Teacher Education, XX (Summer, 1969),pp. 201-212.

37. Wilson, John H. "Differences Between Inquiry-Discovery and theTraditional. Approaches to Teaching Science in the Elementary

Schools." University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1969.

38. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962.

56

A STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SKILL OF EFFECTIVE QUES-TIONING BY PROSPECTIVE SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS

by

Patricia E. Blosser

The Ohio State University, 1970

Dr. Robert W. Howe, Adviser

ABSTRACT

The major problem investigated was to assess the effectiveness ofan instructional procedure designed to develop skill in questioning, asa teaching technique, by prospective science teachers. Subproblemsinvestigated were (a) to determine if skill developed during thisinstructional sequence would transfer to the student teaching experi-ence and (b) to determine possible relationships of selected personalityfactors to the development of questioning skill.

The study extended over three quarters. A total of forty-two pre-service secondary school science teachers were involved. The studentteachers were given the Otis Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Test, GammaTest, Form Em, to measure intelligence; the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,Form E, to measure personality type; and the Educational Set Scale bySiegel and Siegel, to measure educational set.

During each quarter the subjects were randomly assigned to one offour groups: R1, R2, R3, and R4. A. brief design of the study is asfollows:

Group Pretest Treatment Post-test

R1 Yes Teachers for instructional procedure YesRp Yes Student-evaluators for R1 YesR3 Yes None YesR4 No None Yes

Randomly selected students from each of the four groups were observedduring student teaching to determine if skill gained in the instruc-tional sequence would transfer to the reality of student teaching andto determine the effects of time and student teaching on questioningskills. Lessons observed were audiotaped for subsequent analysis.

57

A panel of three judges analyzed the videotaped post-test lessonsfor types of questions asked. Audiotapes were analyzed by the investi-gator. Additional analyses were done to identify behaviors emphasizedas a part of the instructional sequence. The data obtained from thelesson analyses and data obtained through the use of the written instru-ments were subjected to parametric statistical analyses to test theseven hypotheses of the study.

These hypotheses were: (1) Skill in questioning as a teachingtechnique cannot be developed through practice and experiences involvedin an instructional sequence; (2) There is no effect of treatment(teacher of a microclass, pupil in a microclass, member of a controlgroup) on questioning behavior; (3) The skill developed during theinstructional sequence will not transfer to the student teaching experi-ence in the public schools; (ii) There is no relationship between intel-ligence and questioning behavior; (5) There is no relationship betweensex and questioning behavior; (6) There is no relationship between edu-cational set and questioning behavior; (7) There is no relationshipbetween personality type and questioning behavior.

Three criterion variables were chosen to test the hypotheses.These were (1) asking Open Questions (those having a wide range ofacceptable responses), (2) pausing to allow students time to thinkbefore responding, and (3) questioning in a manner designed to decreasethe percentage of teacher talk during a lesson. The .10 level ofsignificance was used for rejection or non-rejection of each hypothesiswith respect to each of the three criterion variables.

Hypotheses one and two were rejected for the criterion variablesof pausing and of decreasing the percentage of teacher talk. Hypothesesone and two could not be rejected for the variable of asking OpenQuestions. Hypotheses three through seven were not rejected for anyof the criterion variables.

The individuals involved in the study appeared representative ofthe population of pre-service secondary school science teachers enrolledat The Ohio State University. Questioning appeared to be a skill thatcould be developed, through instruction and practice, by these indi-viduals. The development of questioning skill did not appear to belimited by intelligence, sex, personality ty, %, or educational set,insofar as this sample was concerned.

58

APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTIONAL PROCEDURES FOR THE THREE TREATMENT GROUPS

Each of the three randomly assigned treatment groups participatedin the instructional procedure on questioning techniques. All threegroups were pretested during quarter one, prior to any instruction.Instruction for the members of group RI was carried out over a twoquarter period. Group R2 members received instruction during quartertwo while members of group R3 received instruction during quarter oneof the study.

Group R1

A. Pretest

B. InstructionalProcedure

Students were asked to prepare and teach a 15-minute lesson in science aimed at ninth gradestudents, using their peers as pupils. Thelesson was videotaped.

Five sessions were involved in group instruction.1` Students were given a written pretest todetermine prior knowledge concerning functionsof questions as a teaching technique. They alsoreceived a copy of the handbook on questioningtechniques and an overview of its contents. Theywere requested to skim the book and read thefirst two chapters before the next meeting onquestioning.2) Students were encouraged to ark questions con-cerning the Question Category Syf tem and. otherhandbook material. They were asked to classifywritten questions during the session. They wereasked to observe experienced teachers and toclassify the questions heard during the observa-tions.

3) Students discussed their observations andattempted to identify patterns in questioningand to relate these to other classroom observa-tions.

(Quarter Two)

4) Students were asked to classify questionsheard during a videotaped biology lesson. Ques-tioning behaviors observed on the videotape werediscussed. Students were asked to prepare abrief lesson plan involving the construction ofkey questions to be asked. These plans and ques-tions were shared for group discussion and criticism.

59

r) Students independently analyzed an audiotapeof their teaching of an elementary science lesson,focusing on questions asked and questioningbehaviors identified. Students scheduled individual conferences to discuss the tape with the

. investigator.6) Students again independently analyzed a secondaudiotape for questions and questioning behaviors.Individual conference was optional.7) Group discussion of problems involved inattempting to put questioning strategies intopractice in the classroom.8) Independent analysis of third audiotape.

Group R2

A. Pretest Same as for group R1.

B. Instructional Five group sessions were also involved.

Procedcre 1) Same as for group R1.2) Students were encouraged to ask questions con-cerning the Question Category System and otherhandbook material. Students were asked to clas-sify written questions. Students viewed a video-tape of a biology lesson and discussed the ques-tioning behaviors exhibited by the teacher.3) Students independently analyzed an audiotapeof their teaching, focusing on questions askedand the questioning behaviors identified. Eachstudent discussed his self - evaluation of the tapewith the investigator at an individual conference.4) Students prepared abrief lesson plan involvingthe construction of key questions to be asked.The lesson objectives and questions were sharedfor group discussion and criticism.5) Students participated in a self-testing activ-ity designed to evaluate their ability to classifyquestions at each of the levels of the QuestionCategory System. The results of the activity werediscussed to clarify points of confusion.6) Students independently analyzed a second audio-tape of their teaching to check on questions andquestioning behaviors. Individual conferences

were optional.7) Group discussion of problems involved inattempting to put questioning strategies intopractice in the classroom.8) Independent' evaluation of the third audiotape.

6o

Group R3

A. Pretest Same as for group RI.

B. Instructional Five group sessions, plus the independent analyses,Procedure were used.

1) Same as for group R1.2) Same as for group 122.3) The students taught microlessons, using theother individuals in the group as pupils. Thequestions and questioning strategies identifiedfrom the audiotapes of the lessons were discussedby the group.

4) The group members taught microlessons, whichwere audiotaped and analyzed by the total group.5) Group discussion of problems involved inattempting to put questioning strategies intopractice in the classroom, with particular empha-sis to a one-to-one tutorial session and withprojections toward small group interaction in thefollowing quarter.

During quarter two, forms for the analysis ofquestions and questioning behavior were madeavailable to members of group R3 if they wishedto undertake any self-evaluation. 4n opportunityfor an individual conference was possible, follow-ing the required conference for groups R1 and R2,but this was not a mandatory activity.

61

APPENDIX C

QUESTION CATEGORY SYSTEM

LEVEL I

I. CLOSEDQUESTIONS

(limitednumber ofacceptableresponses)

QUESTION CATEGORY SYSTEM

LEVEL II

A. COGNITIVE-MEMORY*

B. CONVERGENTTHINKING*

LEVEL III

1. RECALL: includes repeat,

duplicate, memorized definitions2. IDENTIFY or NAME or OBSERVE

1. ASSOCIATE and/or DISCRIMINATE;CLASSIFY

2. REFORMULATE

3. APPLY: previously acquiredinformation to solution of newand/or different problem

4. SYNTHESIZE5. CLOSED PREDICTION: limitations

imposed by conditions, evidence

. MAKE "CRITICAL" JUDGMENT: usingstandards commonly known by class

II. OPENQUESTIONS

(greaternumber ofacceptableresponses)

. DIVERGENTTHENKILV*

. GIVE OPINION

. OPEN PREDICTION: data insufficient

to limit response. INFER or IMPLY

. EVALUATIVETHINKING*

1. JUSTIFY: behavior, plan of actionposition taken

2. DESIGN: new method(s), formulatebjpotheses, conclusion(s)

3. JUDGE A: matters of value, linkedwith affective behaviors

4. JUDGE B: linked with cognitivebehaviors

III. MANAGERIAL Teacher uses to facilitate classroom operations,discussion

. RHETORICAL Teacher uses to reinforce a point; does notexpect (or want) a response

*1. Cognitive,- memory: evidence understood to be directly available(book, previous lesson or discussion, film or filmstrip, chart)

2. Convergent thinking: evidence directly available but not inform called for by question

3. Divergent thinking: evidence for response not directlyavailable

4. Evaluative thinking: evidence may or may not be directlyavailable; criteria for responding available, directly orindirectly. Contains implication that student may be calledupon to provide a defense for his response.

62

APPENDIX D

DEPENDENT VARIABLES INVOLVED IN THE STUDY

(1) Open Questions

An Open Question is defined as one for which there are more thantwo or three acceptable responses. Open Questions do not, intheir wording, limit the area within which a student may thinkbefore voicing a response. Open Questions may be further sub-divided into Divergent Thinking questions and Evaluative Thinkingquestions, according to the Question Category System for Science,the instrument used in this study and shown in Appendix C.

The variable-of Open Questions used in this study was derived byusing the Question Category r,jstem to identify the questions andthen dividing the number of Open Questions identified by thetotal number of questions asked in the portion of the lessonselected for analysis.

(2) Pause Time

Pause Time is defined as a wait (pause) of at least three secondsafter asking a question classified as being at a level abovefactual-recall, so that the students are provided with time tothink before responding.

Pause Time was determined by listening to the tapes and timing thepauses (silences) of the teacher, using a stopwatch. The meanof the pause times for the segment of the lessonanalyzediwas used.

(3) Teacher Talk

A decreased percentage of Teacher Talk during a lesson was assumedto accompany the use of Open Questions and pausing to allow forthinking.. If teachers tsk Open Questions and allow their studentstime to think, they should dominate the verbal interaction intheir classrooms less because they are encouraging more, and moreextended student responses.

The percentage of Teacher Talk was obtained by timing the amountof Teacher Talk and dividing this by the length of the lesson seg-ment selected for analysis. Analysis segments were selected atrandom from the tapes. (The percentage of student talk and of"silence" were also similarly computed although these were notconsidered as criterion variables.)

63

APPENDIX E

SELF-ANALYSIS/EVALUATION FORM USED BY STUDENTS

TAPE ANALYSIS: QUESTIONING

READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE BEGINNING TO LISTEN TO THE TAPE. THEN

ANALYZE YOUR QUESTIONING BEHAVIOR AS YOU LISTEN.

1. Ina minute interval I asked questions.

2. These included:

Managerial Questions Closed Questions

Rhetorical Questions Open Questions

(Behaviors to be encouraged)

3. I asked a student to expand a response

4. I asked students to react to each other

(Behaviors to be discouraged)

times.

times.

5. I repeated my own question or rephrased it times.

6. I repeated a student's response times.

7. I answered my own question times.

8. I did not pause at all or only momentarily times.

9. I made unnecessary comments or remarks times.

GOAL:

Behaviors 3 + 4

Behaviors 5+ 6+ 7+ 8+ 9

1

64

APPENDIX F

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUPPLIED AS BACKGROUNDFOR AUDIOTAPED LESSONS

JUNIOR PROJECT: SCIENCE EDUCATION

QUESTIONING ANALYSIS

Directions: Please complete one of these for your audiotape, to providedata (and give background information) on your questioningtechniques.

J-2 Teacher

School

Date of recording

Grade Level

1. What type of lesson was this: introduLtory, part way through unit,end of unit?

2. What happened during the previous lesson that would relate to and pavethe way for what you did during the lesson which was recorded?

3. What activities did the class do, either individually or.in groups?

4. What did you as teacher do that your students did not?

5. Aside from your questioning techniques, did you think the lessonachieved your major objective(s)? Why or why not?

65

JUNIOR PROJECT: SCIENCE EDUCATIONLESSON PLAN

Teacher Date

Grade level

Topic

MAJOR OBJECTIVE (state'in behavioral terms):

RATIONALE FOR TEACHING:

PROCESS(ES):

CONCEPT(S):

MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT NEEDED:

KEY QUESTIONS:

STUDENT ACTIVITIES:

APPENDIX G

STATISTICAL TABLES

Table 29 - Means and Standard Deviations of Question Type (Level 1)Pause Time, and Percentage of Teacher Talk for the FourTaped Science Lessons

Variable

Total Sample

(N = 27)Mean S.D.

RL

(N = 6)

Mean S.D.

R2

(N = 7)

Mean S.D.

R3

(N = 14)Mean S.D.

Closed Questionsa 0.60 0.18 0.65 0.25 0.70 0.14 0.53 0.14Closed Questionsb 0.57 0.16 0.54 0.17 0.59 0.12 0.58 0.19Closed Questionsc 0.63 0.11 0.69 0.14 0.60 0.10 0.61 0.10Closed Questionsd 0.56 0.13 0.58 0.08 0.62 0.10 0.53 0.15

Open Questionsa 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.12 0.05 0.15 0.10Open Questionsb 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.04 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.09Open Questionsc 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07Open Questionsd 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.10

ManagerialQuestionsa 0.20 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.26 0,11

ManagerialQuestionsb 0.23 0.11 0.24 0.14 0.24 0.12 0.22 0.10

ManagerialQuestionsc 0.24 0.10 0.21 0.09 0.22 0.15 0.26 0.08

ManagerialQuestionsd 0.30 0.12 0.32 0.11 0.22 0.10 0.32 0,13

RhetoricalQuestions& 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.07

RhetoricalQuestionsb 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.06

RhetoricalQuestionsc 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.04

RhetoricalQuestioned 0.05 . 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06

Pause Time Meana 1.32 0,58 1.49 0.69 1.11 0.31 1.37 0.64Pause Time Meanb 1.22 0.62 1.04 0.65 1.56 0.69 1.12 0.55Pause Time Meanc 1.34 0.75 1.60 0.86 1.22 0.57 1.29 0.80Pause Time Meand 1.04 0.45 1.26 0.58 0.88 0.46 1.02 0.37

Teacher Talk& 0,58 0.21 0.76 0.33 0.54 0.13 0.52 0.]3Teacher Ta10 0.36 0.14 0.42 0.22 0.36 0.10 0.33 0.11Teacher Talkc 0.36 0.13 0.34 0.09 0.39 0.14 0.35 0.13Teacher Talkd 0.35 0.09 0.39 0.08 0.34 0.08 0,34 0,09*Tape I (15- minute microteaching lesson, ninth grade level, students were

peers)

bTape II (randomly selected 15-minute segment of science lesson forelementary school children)

*Tape III (randomly selected 15-minute segment of science lesson forelementary school children)

dTape IV (randomly selected 15-minute segment of science lesson forelementary school children)

67

Table 30 - Percentages of Questions Asked in the FourCategories of Level I of the Question Cate-gory System, Pre-Test Lesson

Student Percentage

Closed Open Managerial Rhetorical

TREATMENT GROUP R1

01 54 23 15 08lo 75 00 25 0029 31 31 31 0832 80 00 00 2035 50 31 19 0039 100 00 00 00

TREATMENT GROUP R2

03 88 13 0004 77 o8 1512 80 20 0013 56 06 3133 62 14 21314 78 13 0336 50 13 25

TREATMENT GROUP R3

02 76 16 0007 51 28 1609 42 25 3315 56 00 104

17 44 13 3819 32 26 32

20 53 24 24

22 69 00 2524 51. 11 3725 33 11 3327 64 09 1830 53 26 1631 71 03 2138 44 17 22

0805

00000611

00

060022

0905

06

17

68

Table 31 - Pause Time Means (sec), Percentage of TeacherTalk, by Treatment Group, Pre-Test Lesson

Student Pause Time Mean Teacher Talk

TREATMENT GROUP R1

01 1.12 5110 2.25 8029 1.33 5232 1.50 6335 2.25 7339 0.46 63

TREATMENT GROUP R2

03 1.22 5004 0.75 5812 0.92 3613 1.52 7433 1.51 4534 0.96 4636 0.91 67

TREATMENT GROUP Rs

02 0.80 8207 1.65 3809 0.73 6015 2.44 6o17 0.94 5219 0.61 3220 2.06 582224

1.641.16

5352

25 o.58 6627 2.14 363o 1.67 5431 0.76

3238 1.93 54

Table 32 - Percentages of Questions Asked in the Four

Categories of Level I of the Question Cate-gory System, Audiotape I

Student Percentage


TREATMENT GROUP R1

01 51 08 25 1710 69 10 19 0329 53 11, 09 2332 35 02 47 1635 4o 10 33 1739 78 08 11 03

TREATMENT GROUP R2

03 42 20 18 2004 73 23 03 0012 57 17 22 0413 59 04 37 0033 48 03 4o 0934 72 03 21 0336 64 02 28 06

TREATMENT GROUP R3

02 42 24 24 0907 58 01 29 1209 49 15 29 0715 68 00 22 1017 79 15 06 0019 44 14 25 1620 73 05 21 0022 56 07 27 1024 53 12 29 0625 77 13 02 0827 67 12 14 0730 21 33 31 1531 87 00 13 0038 31 13 37 19

70

Table 33 - Pause Time Means (sec), Percentage ofTeacher Talk, by Treatment Group,Audiotape I


TREATMENT GROUP RI

01 2.27 3310 0.62 2629 0.55 7832 0.77 3535 1.23 2039 0.79 61

TREATMENT GROUP R2

03 o.84 4304 1.63 1812 0.97 3713 1.81 3233 1.38 5034 1.36 4036 2.91 32

TREATMENT GROUP R3

02 2.35 2607 1.87 2409 1.23 5415 0.90 4517 0.81 0919 0.65 2820 1.36 3522 1.36 3124 1.44 3125 0.77 3127 1,10 2330 1,02 3831 0.09 4938 0,77 35

71

Table 34 - Percentages of Questions Asked in the Four Cate-

gories of Level I of the Question CategorySystem, Audiotape II

StudentPercentage

Closed open Managerial Rhetorical

TREATMENT GROUP R1

01 74 06 19 0010 74 06 21 0029 56 04 20 2032 52 09 36 01

35 66 03 24 08

39 92 00 o8 00

TREATMENT GROUP R2

03 69 03 14 1004 66 00 22 1312 53 15 17 1513 68 17 07 07

33 64 16 14 0634 42 05 53 0036 55 15 27 02

TREATMENT GROUP R3

02 68 00 21 1107 64 14 16 0709 58 06 2 9 0715 67 07 17 o817 73 09 18 0019 .67 00 20 1320 38 25 25 1322 60 00 40 0024 54 00 38 0825 66 00 31 0327 73 09 16 0230 44 11 36 0831 67 07 22 0538 60 05 30 05

72

Table 35 - Paus6 Time Means (sec), Percentage of TeacherTalk, by Treatment Group, Audiotape II


TREATMENT GROUP R1

01 2.65 4510 1.12 3329 0.76 4132 0.65 3535 2.18 1839 2.25 30

TREATMENT GROUP R2

03 1.62 5504 2.25 2612 0.69 4013 0.71 4533 1.23 5834 0.78 2136 1.28 29

TREATMENT GROUP R3

02 1.36 3107 1.08 2009 1.38 3915 0.73 3517 2.95

. 0919 1.95 4720 2.88 5022 0.40 5224 0.85 4825 0.38 1327 1.05 3930 1.04 3231 1.37 4638 0.69 35

73

Table 36 - lercentages of Questions Asked in the FourCategories of Level Iof the Question Cate-gory System, Audiotape III

StudentPercentage


TREATMENT GROUP RI

01 6o 05 35 00

10 57 07 36 00

29 51 00 49 oo

32 69 03 22 06

35 47 16 34 03

39 62 13 18 07

TREATMENT GROUP R2

03 69' 00 13 17

04 74 11 11 05

12 148 19 33 01

13 57 11 29 03

33 58 21 15 06

34 55 05 34\

05

36 72 04 21 02

TREATMENT GROUP R3

02 70 02 25 04

07 29 26 46 00

09 39 20 39 02

15 52 09 33 06

17 A 00 67 00

19 55 08 29 08

20 79 00 21 00

22 76 04 13 07

24 48 04 26 22

25 50 07 4o 03

27 50 20 23 07

3o 46 00 38 15

31 45 31 22 02

38 67 04 26 04

714

Table 37 - Pause Time Means (sec), Percentage of Teacher

Talk, by Treatment Group, Audiotape III


01102932

3539

TREATMENT GROUP R1

28

374538

3351

0.441.861.031.251.991.01

TREATMENT GROUP R2

03 0.83 3804 0.55 2512 0.76 3713 0.86 2533 0.64 3934 0.67 2936 1.89 48

TREATMENT GROUP R3 4*

02 0.36 4907 0.91 1709 1.13 3815 1.29 4217 1.17 2219 0,93 2920 0.58 4222 0.40 3624 0.76 4325 1.52 2527 1.45 2730 1.21 3831 1.27 4238 1.25 31

75

1

DOCUMENT RESUME SE 015 696 AUTHOR Blosser, Patricia E. … · 2014-01-02 · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 072...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME SE 015 696 AUTHOR Blosser, Patricia E. … · 2014-01-02 · DOCUMENT RESUME ED 072...